Q: I’m employed in a position that’s reverted to a blend of office and remote work necessitating a 90-minute commute for two days per week. I’ve noticed discrepancies as some folks in my department only need to show up once a month, while others get quizzed if not present for both days. Is this prejudice, or should I seek advice on asking for more work-from-home privileges?
A: Comparing the magic monthly appearances of some employees with the twice-weekly requirement imposed on others points to the employer’s inconsistent policies, argues Michelle Halloran, an independent HR advisor and workplace investigator from Halloran HR Resolutions.
She submits that, according to the trends in different sectors, most companies now incline towards having staff in the office for at least two if not three days. However, she stresses that policies must be consistently enforced, whatever they are.
She opines, “While they aren’t contravening legal stipulations, employers do need to ensure fairness, consistency, and constructive engagement with everyone. This may not exactly be discrimination but could be seen as biased treatment.”
When two colleagues with identical roles face different flexibility levels, it prompts the question of fairness, she observes.
Nonetheless, the leniency shown to certain employees could come from specific personal circumstances leading to requests for a predominant work-from-home setup under the laws effective since March.
Halloran also envisages such special provisions potentially stirring resentment and disrupting workplace congeniality as more office-bound staff may feel envious.
She advises, “Employers need to be exceedingly careful to strive for fairness and uniformity. If I were in the questioner’s place, I’d discuss my own circumstances with my supervisor, talk about the considerable distance from my home to the office, and propose the possibility of more remote work.”
The advice is to put the request in writing if you wish to work remotely, and if that leads nowhere, then presenting a formal complaint that describes your issues could be a valid alternative, as suggested in the reader’s question.
However, individuals must bear in mind that there isn’t any guaranteed right to work from home. Like part-time hours, the employer has an obligation to reasonably consider your request, but they retain the right to decline it, as per the guidance.
Unique situations that lead to remote working conditions may induce feelings of envy and discontentment. So much so, some individuals may decide to silently resign or entirely leave from the company, according to HR Buddy’s CEO and founder, Damien McCarthy.
He believes that communication stands as the key factor for organisational leaders and their employees to navigate this appropriately. Different roles, personal circumstances, and variability in remote work performance can call for differing arrangements, which can naturally cause envy or resentment amongst the workforce.
The imposition of a sudden, universal rule that commands staff to work in the office more often may engender a sense of discontentment towards the corporation, and potentially dampen engagement, McCarthy further explains.
He warns that if the current “cloak and daggers game” between employers and employees persists, resistance to return to the office will likely continue. For organisations to reach a successful level of flexibility, he underscores that more honest and transparent dialogues concerning remote working must become prevalent.
For this situation, he encourages the reader to make a formal request for remote working, stating their reasons and demonstrating how they can effectively accommodate their responsibilities from home.
He refers to the Workplace Relations Commission’s code of practice when thinking about groundings for the request. These may range from diminishing your commuting and carbon footprint, personal or domestic reasons, to particular health conditions that require a peaceful working atmosphere.