Tribunal rules 100% home working is less efficient
It’s the employment law hot topic of the decade and it’s due to carry on, and on – “is homeworking more or less effective than working from an office?”
“More”, cry the civil service, though we won’t hear them as they’re all at home (and is it any coincidence that everything takes longer – a recent probate application I handled took nearly a year to grant).
“Less” would cry an imaginary group of employers, and anybody involved in the
provision of serviced offices, and all of the owners of shops and restaurants around them.
So, Mrs Wilson, a senior employee of the Financial Conduct Authority, decided to test her opinion that home working was at least as good as working from an office, at an employment tribunal. This case, which concluded before Christmas, is one of the first of its kind.
Tribunal concludes 100% home working is less efficient
Mrs Wilson lost her case, and the tribunal agreed with the FCA that working 100% from home was in fact not as efficient as spending some time in the office. Landmark? Well not quite, to be binding on others the outcome would need to be approved by a higher court, but interesting nonetheless.
Mrs Wilson argued that 100% home working worked perfectly well and had done since the pandemic, and she evidenced this by showing her appraisal ratings, which were all ‘excellent’. Compelling evidence….
What did the FCA offer as reasons to support its opinion that 100% home working is in fact detrimental?
6 reasons why home working is less effective (Wilson Vs FCA)
Her manager told Mrs Wilson that her flexible working request (to work entirely from home) would be refused, because by attending the office she would be better able to perform the following duties:
- Meeting and welcoming new staff members
- Internal training, supervision and department needs where a line manager has a visible presence in the office to provide structured or informal/ad hoc advice and support to team members
- Attendance at in-person events and conferences and planning meetings run within physical office accommodation
- Attendance at weekly ‘Cascade’ meetings where information is imparted by Senior Managers and individual and team successes are acknowledged and celebrated
- Authorisation Leadership sessions where managers, Heads of Departments and Directors meet to discuss key topics
- ‘Department Day’ – management team would present topics to the department and spend the day together. Her manager said she wanted to run the session in a ‘market stall’ layout so staff, especially new staff could move around and physically meet the managers.
Tribunal agrees and rules refusal to grant flexible working request is fair
The Employment Judge agreed with Mrs Wilson manager and also wondered whether Mrs Wilson would be able to enforce the FCA’s homeworking policy, which required 40% office attendance, when she was not herself following the same policy.
What does this case mean for employers?
As we mentioned earlier the case won’t set a precedent – in employment cases only rulings at the Employment Appeal Tribunal or higher courts can do that – but it does provide some useful indications nonetheless, particularly for employers trying to persuade employees back to the office.
It’s important to note that the FCA wasn’t trying to enforce 100% office attendance – it was happy with 50% for senior managers, 40% for others. Also noteworthy is that Mrs Wilson didn’t have any health issues that may have increased the merit of her request.
HR support from JCHR
Do you need help managing a flexible working request, or with a flexible working policy? As well as providing retained clients with full up to date staff handbooks, the HR team can provide practical advice and guidance to managers dealing with requests, and attend meetings and appeals on your behalf.
If you’re thinking of outsourcing your HR, payroll or employment law needs, why not contact JCHR? Call us on 01635 553 299, email us at info@jCHR.uk, or contact us via our website and we’ll call you back.
