As employers continue to refine return-to-office (‘RTO‘) expectations, a tension is emerging between business needs and employees’ statutory right to request remote or flexible working under the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 (the ‘Act‘). While the Act sets procedural obligations to be followed, employers retain broad discretion to refuse requests.
The Legal Framework and the Code of Practice
Crucially, the Act does not create a right to work remotely. It creates a right to request a remote working arrangement. The Workplace Relations Commission (‘WRC‘) Code of Practice on the Right to Request Flexible and Remote Working (the ‘Code‘) provides practical guidance on how employers should manage those requests.
Employers must assess requests in an “objective, fair and reasonable” manner, balancing the needs of the business with those of the employee. A response must be issued within four weeks, although this may be extended to eight weeks if the employee is notified within the initial four-week period. Any refusal must be supported by reasons. Although the Code is not legally binding, it is admissible in evidence and is likely to remain an important benchmark for assessing compliance with the Act.
What the WRC and Labour Court Have Focused On
Early decisions confirm a clear theme: the WRC and Labour Court’s role does not include considering the merits of the request or the employer’s reasoning for its refusal. Their role is confined to reviewing whether the employer complied with the statutory process and timelines.
In a 2026 case, the Labour Court confirmed that an employer may refuse a remote working request where it has identified relevant business impacts, such as performance, collaboration or operational concerns, provided the request has been properly considered in accordance with the Act and the Code.
Employers must show that they genuinely considered the request, balanced the relevant business and employee needs, and documented the reasoning behind the outcome. To date, a number of complaints have failed where employers were able to point to a clear and documented consideration process. Conversely, even relatively minor procedural missteps can create exposure, particularly where deadlines are missed or the reasons for refusal are not clearly recorded. However, recent cases have showed the WRC’s willingness to take a balanced approach, consider whether a technical breach actually prejudiced the employee, and if so, whether an award was justified for the breach.
The WRC can direct the employer to comply with the legislation, award compensation up to a maximum of four weeks remuneration, or both.
The Practical Tension with RTO Policies
Mandatory RTO policies are not prohibited. A blanket requirement to attend the office may be capable of justification in some businesses or roles, but it should not replace an individual assessment of the particular request.
The key question is not simply whether an employer can insist on office attendance. In many cases, it can. The more important question is whether the employer can demonstrate that each request was genuinely and individually considered.
Practical Tips for Employers
- Implement a remote and flexible working policy that reflects the Act and the Code
- Assess each request individually and avoid relying on policy-based refusals alone
- Diarise and meet the statutory deadlines
- Keep a clear record of the factors considered, including the employee’s reasons and the employer’s business rationale
- Train managers on how to recognise and respond to formal requests
- Support RTO requirements with evidence-based business reasons
In short, the emerging Irish position is clear: employers retain discretion on outcomes, but procedural compliance is crucial. If you have any queries about managing remote working requests or aligning your RTO strategy with Irish employment law requirements, please contact your usual Littler contact.
