In this article Alison Devine of AG specifically looks at the Code of Practice for Employers and Employees introduced by the WRC in March 2024 which aimed to provide some guidance on the procedures to be invoked when dealing with remote and flexible working requests under the 2023 Act. This article highlights aspects of the Code of Practice that employers and HR advisors should be aware of in light of recent decisions of the WRC: -

1.    Entitlement to Request Remote Working

Employees with a minimum of six months' service have an entitlement to request remote working only. This means employees do not have an entitlement to work remotely. The request made by the employee must follow the prescribed format set out in the Code of Practice. The request must be made at least eight weeks before the proposed start day of the remote working period. The request must be: -

• In writing
• Include the days and number of days for the remote working arrangement;
• The proposed location of the remote working arrangement as well as its suitability;
• The proposed start date and end date; and
• The reason(s) for the request.

Some reasons for the request could include the reduction of a daily commute or personal circumstances but there is no exhaustive list of reasons. Employers are also entitled to ask for further information which is reasonably required to assess the request.

Employers must respond to the request within four weeks of receipt, but this can be extended by a further four-week period (a maximum of eight weeks). However, within the first four weeks of receipt employers must, in writing, approve the request (by way of signed agreement), refuse the request (and provide the reasons for the refusal) or provide notice that further time is required to consider the request. 

This means that there is an obligation on the employer to take some form of action within the first four weeks of receipt of the request. It is very important that employers are organised, and record and diary any requests received and that the individual dealing with the request is trained and is aware of the timeframe in which to respond and the format for the response. In particular if an extension is needed that this is to be communicated as soon as possible in writing.  

2.    Merits of the reasons 

The legislation does not require a WRC Adjudicator or the Labour Court to assess the merits of a decision made by an employer to refuse a request. This is reflected in the few decisions issued to date by the WRC. The WRC has not, to date, commented or criticised the reasons of an employer in refusing a request. However, employers need to be aware that they must consider the request having regard to the business needs, the employee's needs and the requirements of the Code of Practice. Therefore, care should be taken by employers to carefully consider each request objectively and reasonably before reaching a decision. 

It is important to note that while the WRC or Labour Court will not assess the merits of a decision made, they will assess the process which was followed. Therefore, it would be a good idea for employers to have a system in place for recording the process entered into in making any decision and to ensure that this process and the reasons considered in reaching a decision are communicated to employees.

3.    Delay

Any delay on the part of the employer in responding to a remote working request could lead to an employee succeeding on a procedural basis under the 2023 Act before the WRC. This was the case in Thomas Farrell -v- Salesforce in April 2025. This case involved a refusal of a remote working request by an employee who would need to undertake a 550km daily round-trip to work from the office. The request was made after he was instructed to return to the office 3-4 times a week following an agreement made a year previously between him and the employer following which he relocated to the west of Ireland. 
The WRC focused on the fact that his request was responded to two days outside of the prescribed four-week response period. As a result of the employer being two days late in responding, which was viewed by the WRC as a minor delay, the employee was awarded €1,000 compensation. 

The WRC will take a more sympathetic approach if there is a specific reason for the delay by the employer. As can be seen from the case of Javier Osorio -v- Cognizant Technology Solutions Limited, where it was successfully argued that although it took the employer eight weeks instead of four weeks to respond to the employee's request, the volume of requests at that time meant that it was "inevitable that for the applications to be properly considered, it would take time to reach a conclusion". It is important to note that in that case, 72 employees out of 380 employees applied for remote working in or around the same time and it was an atypical circumstance.

Interestingly, another employee of Cognizant Technology Solutions Limited brought a complaint to the WRC (Varvara Gintaliene -v- Cognizant Technology Solutions Limited ADJ-00053903) in respect of a refusal of a remote working request. The decision was published 17 June 2025. The refusal occurred some five weeks after the request was submitted but the WRC noted that this occurred at the time the employer was processing a large volume of applications. It also noted that the employee’s proposed remote working start date was some weeks away and so the additional week taken to make the decision did not prejudice her. Furthermore, as she did not raise the issue of delay within the internal appeal process, it “had not been an obvious concern”. While the WRC noted that there was a technical breach insofar as the employer responded within five weeks as opposed to four weeks, it did not merit any redress. 

Another important related point in relation to managing issues that might arise in relation to employee’s return to work was highlighted recently by the Office of the Data Protection Commission. This case study highlighted that when, requesting that employees return to the office or considering disciplining employees for failure to return to the office employers need to be careful if relying on data such as swipe card information. It is very important that any policies such as data protection notices, attendance policies and disciplinary policies all specifically refer to the fact that such information may be used by an employer as part of a disciplinary investigation. Employees need to know the exact purpose for collecting and monitoring such data and if this purpose involves use in a disciplinary investigation this should be specifically brought to their attention to ensure the evidence can be relied upon.