One of the first employment tribunals in the UK post-pandemic has found that “the office was a better environment for rapid discussion and non-verbal communication”, ruling against a working from home full-time request by a senior manager at the UK Financial Conduct Authority.
Finding “weaknesses with remote working”, employment judge Robert Richter knew his decision was being watched closely by other employers trying to push staff back to the office, commenting:
“It is the experience of many who work using technology that it is not well suited to the fast-paced interplay of exchanges which occur in, for example, planning meetings or training events when rapid discussion can occur on topics,” he wrote in the judgment, which was made last month and published this week.
He also pointed to “a limitation to the ability to observe and respond to non-verbal communication which may arise outside of the context of formal events but which nonetheless forms an important part of working with other individuals”.
The legal sector is expecting more disputes of this nature as employers increasingly demand staff spend more time in the office post-pandemic. C-suite leaders are grappling with inconsistent productivity rates, emergent AI-enabled solutions and co-pilot projects, and increased burnout among staff, all complicating efforts for an industry-wide WFH strategy.
The complainant, Ms Wilson, brought the case after managers rejected her request to permanently work from home following the easing of pandemic restrictions—despite “glowing” performance reviews.
And it makes for an interesting case when drilling into the details.
First, Wilson said the FCA had “excellent” technology, that many of the disadvantages of remote working were “not real”, and there was a lack of physical meeting space at the FCA.
The FCA for its part believed the permanent aspect of the request would have a “negative impact on the department”, citing managerial responsibilities and noting she would not attend face-to-face training sessions and meetings. (Wilson directly managed four staff and had indirect responsibility for another 10.)
Second, employees in England and Wales do not have the general right to demand exclusive remote work unless it is specified in their contract, although employers are required to consider requests and are only able to refuse them for good reasons. Scotland, the EU and the US all differ in their approaches, complicating efforts further for a generalised procedure for international teams.
Third, this case is within a highly regulated environment, further hampering Ms Wilson’s case. You can bet that many more of these will come past judge’s desks over the coming months and years. The C-suite’s responsibility is to ensure it doesn’t get to this stage: compromise is dreaded in theory but a necessity in reality.
