There’s no place like home…except the office

A senior manager lost a tribunal case when her employer refused to let her permanently work from home.

In giving judgment, Employment Judge Richter backed the need for top executives to work in the office, although the judge expected other work-from-home disputes in the future.

Earning £140,000 from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), Elizabeth Wilson had requested to carry out her job exclusively from home.

She requested a change to her contract in December 2022 under the Employment Rights Act 1996. This was refused, and after losing an appeal, Miss Wilson took the FCA to the employment tribunal.

She began working from home for health reasons during the Covid pandemic. After restrictions were lifted, the FCA’s new policy required staff to work in the office for two days a week.

Miss Wilson put in a flexible working request, stating that she was a high performer and that being in the office was not essential for her.

The Employment Rights Act says such a request can only be refused on the grounds of detrimental impact on work quality, detrimental impact on performance, or both.

When her manager asked whether occupational health should be involved, Miss Wilson declined the offer.

The flexible working application was refused. FCA stated: “Approving this request could have a detrimental impact on performance or quality of output, as you will not attend face-to-face training sessions, departmental away days/meetings and you will not be able to provide face-to-face training or coaching to team members or new joiners. Your ability to input in management strategy meetings and be involved in in-person collaboration will also be negatively impacted.”

The FCA’s reason for refusing a senior manager included meeting and welcoming new staff members, internal training, supervision and department needs where a line manager has a visible presence in the office, in-person events and conferences, planning meetings, weekly ‘cascade’ meetings, leadership sessions and for‘ department day’.

Miss Wilson then appealed the decision, but this was rejected by the FCA’s Director of Authorisations, saying “It is reasonable for the FCA to conclude that it would still be better and of real benefit to you and, in particular, your team and your team’s performance, if they were able to connect with you in person in the office.”

Employment law advice

At the trial, the employment judge held that the response to the request took too long saying, “It is the clear intention from the legislation that flexible working requests should be dealt with expeditiously and so the time limit is a strict one. An outstanding request places considerable stress upon an employee who needs the certainty of a decision to enable arrangements to be made for a changed working regime or to consider their position if a request is refused.”

She awarded Miss Wilson one week’s salary as compensation.

But on the working from home, Judge Richter ruled in favour of the FCA, commenting “This is a case that raises a key issue in the modern workplace, and which will no doubt be the subject of continued litigation. The need for staff to provide a physical presence at an office location is a debate that many companies are now engaged in, and the solutions arrived at will no doubt differ considerably from employer to employer.”

Photo credit www.LyncConf.com

News story, Sep 2022 – Employers face legal traps over home working