“You Can Ask…”: Remote Working in Ireland Recap

Between July 2024 and February 2025, seven decisions were issued by the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) under the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 (“2023 Act”) in relation to employee requests for remote working. In each case, the complaint was unsuccessful, with the WRC finding in favour of the employer. These early rulings established a clear judicial pattern: the WRC would confine itself to reviewing procedural compliance rather than interrogating the substance of an employer’s refusal.

This outcome contrasts sharply with the expectations set at the time of the legislation’s introduction. When first announced in November 2022, the Government stated that the 2023 Act would “offer less commuting, fewer transport emissions, better quality of life with more time with family and friends… new job opportunities for people who want to live in rural Ireland, for people with disabilities and for people with caring responsibilities.” The ambition was social and economic transformation – so why has the practical impact been so modest?

This article revisits those early expectations and evaluates whether the most recent decisions reflect a change in how the right to request remote working is being interpreted.

The 2023 Act

The 2023 Act ushered in a new statutory framework for remote working. For the first time, all employees have a legal right to request a remote working arrangement (“RWA”). This was widely welcomed as a post-pandemic step toward more flexible work practices. Importantly, however, the 2023 Act does not guarantee employees the right to work remotely – only the right to ask. In practice, this means employers are not obliged to grant every request, but they are obliged to follow a defined process when such requests are made.

Under Sections 20 and 21 of the Act, employers must adhere to specific procedural steps when an employee requests remote working:

Employee Request Requirements (Section 20):

• An employee’s request must be in writing (hard copy or electronic), signed and submitted at least 8 weeks before the proposed start of the remote work arrangement.
• The request should detail the nature of the remote working arrangement sought, the proposed start and end dates, the proposed remote location, and information on the location’s suitability.
• The employee must also state their reasons for the request. Employers are entitled to ask for further information if something is missing or unclear.

Employer’s Duty to Consider and Respond (Section 21):

• Once a valid request is received, the employer must give it consideration, weighing business needs, the employee’s needs, and the requirements set out in the WRC Code of Practice.
• This consideration should be “objective, fair, and reasonable”.
• The employer must respond within 4 weeks by either approving, refusing with reasons, or requesting an extension (up to 8 additional weeks).

Documenting Approval or Refusal:

• If approved, a written agreement must be drawn up, signed by both parties, outlining the scope of remote work, start and end dates, and any other conditions.
• If refused, the employer’s written notice must include reasons for rejecting such.

What does the case law say?

Recent WRC decisions provide a clear picture of how the statutory right to request remote working is functioning in practice and the limits of adjudicative review.

In Musaev v TikTok Technology Ltd (ADJ-00052437), the employee sought full-time remote work due to the psychological effects of commuting following a serious road traffic accident. Despite compelling personal circumstances, the WRC upheld the employer’s decision to refuse the request because it was satisfied that TikTok had followed the statutory process under Sections 20 and 21. The Adjudication Officer held that once proper consideration was given, the WRC was precluded under Section 27 from assessing the merits of the refusal. The complaint was dismissed as not properly founded.

In Varvara Gintaliene v Cognizant Technology Solutions Ireland Ltd (ADJ-00053903), the employee submitted a well-reasoned request for remote working, citing a lengthy commute, family responsibilities, and strong productivity while working from home during the pandemic. The employer issued its written response one week outside the statutory 4-week period but had verbally informed the employee in advance of the delay. The WRC deemed this a technical breach, not warranting redress, particularly as the employer’s overall process was found to be objective, fair, and reasonable. The refusal was grounded in a contractual agreement with the client to whom the employee was assigned, which required on-site performance of duties. While the employee challenged the absence of documentary evidence, the WRC accepted credible oral testimony and acknowledged the employer’s efforts to consider alternatives. Crucially, the Adjudication Officer observed: “Each case will turn on its own particular facts and once satisfied as to adherence with the requirements of Section 21(1)(a)(i), (ii) & (iii) of the Act and the Code of Practice, it is not for the Adjudication Officer to look behind the decision or reason/s given.” In this instance, the refusal was substantiated by the factual matrix and upheld.

In contrast to the above, and for the first time since, the 2023 Act’s enactment, in Farrell v Salesforce (ADJ-00052842), the WRC upheld a complaint solely on the basis that the employer missed the initial 4-week response deadline under the 2023 Act. No compelling justification was offered for the delay. The substantive refusal reasons were issued after the complaint was filed and thus deemed irrelevant to the decision. Despite the relatively minor nature of the breach, the WRC awarded €1,000 in compensation.

The WRC’s role is narrowly defined: it assesses process, not substance. Under Section 27 of the 2023 Act, the WRC cannot question the merits of an employer’s decision or compel approval of a request. Its sole focus is whether the employer followed the statutory procedure – considering the application, responding on time, and giving written reasons. This reflects a clear legislative intent to preserve employer discretion, provided the process is fair, timely, and well-documented.

Prescribed Steps for Processing Remote Working Requests

Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 – Sections 20 & 21

This article was drafted by Caitriona Montague (Associate).