Page 8
Ireland
13 Reasons Why (Not) - The Disappointing Right to Request Remote Work Bill 2022 By Daniel Mooney, LL.M. (Intellectual Property and Information Technology) On the 25th of January 2022, Tánaiste Leo Varadkar announced that the much-anticipated Right to Request Remote Work Bill 2022 had been passed by the Cabinet. The Bill, which follows on from the previous Remote Work Strategy from January 2021, was adopted after two years of predominantly mandated remote work for many of the country’s workers. While the proposal has been long-awaited, unfortunately it falls short in a number of ways. This article aims to briefly analyse the Bill’s provisions, showcase its shortcomings, and consider the missed opportunity for meaningful reform of the employment environment in Ireland. The overall aim of the Bill is to introduce the right to remote work in Ireland. While the Bill’s aim is ambitious, its proposed scheme unfortunately falls short. In attempting to achieve that goal, the Bill allows all workers, who have served at least twenty-six months of continuous service, the right to request remote work. Employers are required to create a remote work policy that sets out the process for requests, the timeframe for decisions, and conditions that apply to the organisation’s remote working. The Bill provides thirteen reasons why a request may be rejected, including “potential negative impact on quality of business product,” “concerns for the internet connectivity of the proposed remote working location,” and “potential negative impact on performance of employee or other employees”. Clearly, these grounds grant wide discretion to employers, some of which are difficult to define. In particular, the possibility for rejection on “potential” negative impact grounds is vague and overly broad. Alan Eustace, writing in The Irish Times, has further pointed out that these thirteen reasons are not exhaustive. Rather, they are a baseline for rejection, while employers can also reject a request for not being suitable on “business grounds,” which is again broad and vague. The expansive nature of the employer’s right to reject a request critically weakens the right to remote work. These grounds in essence give complete discretion to the employer as to whether workers can avail of the right at all. This arguably renders the right to remote work illusory. Although the Bill prohibits an absolute voidance of the right, the practical effect of the Bill creates such a scenario for workers in reality. While workers can challenge refusals at the Workplace Relations Commission, this too is laden with practical problems that hamstring workers’ rights. Foremost is the fact that many workers will be daunted by the prospect of challenging their employer in a formal setting, especially given the broad grounds for refusal, which will in effect confine challenges to only the most egregious denials. This will, in particular, impact younger or less experienced workers, who may be less likely to formally challenge an employer’s unfair refusal for fear of jeopardising their careers. Further, challenges are limited only to procedural issues, indicating that once the process is followed and a business ground provided, workers cannot succeed in a challenge. The twentysix-months-of-service requirement would also seem to favour long-term workers seeking long-term remote arrangements, again to the disadvantage of those on shorter or contract-based work. Another issue is that the onus lies on workers to provide a written request setting out a number of different criteria, including a self-assessment on data protection, confidentiality, minimum levels of internet connectivity, ergonomic suitability of proposed workspace and any equipment or furniture requirements. While one would imagine workers will need to provide some form of information on these matters, arguably the standard is overly detailed and onerous, having the effect of discouraging applications in general. Considerations for
