Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Import Operations Worker

Logistics Company

Representatives

  self

Louise Simpson Momentum Human Capital Ltd

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00001845

03/10/2023

The worker commenced employment with the employer on 13/08/2018.  She submitted her disputes to the Workplace Relations Commission on 03/10/2023.  She has outlined a number of issued in relation to her employment arising from a proposed change from remote working to office-based working.

The worker has been working remotely for the past three years and this arrangement consisted of one day office based and four days remote.  She had agreed this arrangement with her previous manager and her current manger was also happy with this arrangement.  On 10/08/2023 the worker was called into her managers officer and told that the employer had decided that remote working was finished, and she would have to return to the office full time.  At this time the company was taken over by a new company.   The reason given for the return to office was low volume of work.  The worker expressed her concerns about returning to the office full time and her manager gave her some advice in relation to this.  The worker received an unsigned letter confirming the decision to cease remote working.  The worker took issue with this letter as it was from the previous company and not the new company and only two employees received this letter.  The letter indicated that all employees should be back in the office by 06/09/2023.  The worker continued working as previously agreed and she was contacted by a HR representative. Her manager stated that he could not help her anymore.  The employer commenced an investigation into the matter, and she was deemed not to be following a reasonable management instruction.  The worker took issue with how the meeting was conducted and she was subsequently invited to a disciplinary meeting on 03/10/2023 stating misconduct.  She felt intimidated at this meeting and was unable to express herself and she felt that the employer was trying to dismiss her or to create a constructive dismissal scenario.  She received a first written warning.  The worker appealed this decision, and her appeal was partially upheld, and the warning was removed, and a process was to be put in place to allow the worker to submit a request for working in a hybrid manner.

The worker submitted her request to continue her existing hybrid working arrangements.  The worker was offered a compromise arrangement which would trial two days office and three days at home.   The worker appealed this decision, and the appeal allowed the worker to continue working a four/one pattern. 

The worker also has raised issues regarding her working relationship with her manager and a further issue in relation to the condition of the office she had to work in.

The employer is eager to reassure the worker and the WRC that the employer sees the worker as a valuable employee, and nothing has arisen that would give cause to any consideration of the worker’s dismissal.  The employer has had an on-going engagement with the worker and is committed to resolving the issues raised.

The employer notes that the worker’s contract of employment states the location of her place of work.  She worked at this location until the arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic and workers were permitted to work from home at that time.  The worker continued to work four days at home and one office based during that time.

A letter was issued to all hybrid working employees on 14/08/2023 which gave notice that full time office working would apply from 04/09/2023.  The worker did not comply with this request, and this resulted in an investigation in relation to her failure to follow a reasonable management instruction.  This was followed by a disciplinary hearing and a first written warning was issued.  The appeal of this decision was partially upheld, and the warning was removed from the worker’s record, and she was given an opportunity and a process to submit a formal flexible hybrid working request.  The worker applied to continue her existing arrangement of four days home and one day office.  Various options were subsequently discussed, and the current position is that the complainant’s existing pattern continues.

The employer is committed to facilitating hybrid working and is happy to work with employees in line with the WRC code of practice when this is published.

The employer is also committed to agree a process to look at the issues in relation to the worker’s working relationship with her manager.  The employer accepts that the issue in relation to the condition of the office is not acceptable and the employer is currently in discussions about moving to a new office premises.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.   I note that the employer are committed putting hybrid working arrangements in place and will examine and implement the WRC code of practice when this is published.  The employer has emphasised its high regard for the worker and is willing to work to resolve the issues raised.  The worker is also keen to move on with her life and despite the delays over the past few months wants to be able to work without having to worry about these matters.

Following extensive engagement with the parties I have set out a number of recommendations below which are designed to assist the parties in resolving the matters in dispute.

Hybrid working.