Anthony Fay

The Covid lockdowns acted as a catalyst, accelerating the adoption of remote working (RW) in Ireland throughout the 2020s. In response to this societal shift, the Oireachtas enacted the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023, which includes a statutory right to request a RW arrangement. This initiative is further supported by the Workplace Relations Commission’s (WRC) Codes of Practice on Flexible and Remote Working and the Right to Disconnect. For clarity, there is however no automatic right to RW in Ireland.

Rewind to the Dublin lockout over a century ago, a bitter industrial dispute between employers and workers led by the trade unionist, James Larkin. A modern day Larkin might dismiss the right to request RW as a cod and little more than a tokenistic gesture. Could this perspective be overly cynical?

Statistics and studies

Ireland has in fairness been an early mover within the EU in establishing a statutory framework for these requests. The country consistently ranks highly in comparative terms with its  European neighbours, according to RW data from Eurostat, Statistia and the OEDC. However, a recent CSO Labour Force Survey revealed a slight decrease of 1.6 per cent in the number of people working from home, falling to 956,700 in Q4 of 2025.

In March 2026, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment published a statutory review report, after extensive consultations with stakeholders including the public, employees, employers, the WRC and trade unions.

Key findings of the  report make for interesting reading including that “Ireland’s remote work landscape is fundamentally uneven, with access largely driven by employer size and sector. Many workers – especially in smaller firms and sectors such as construction and hospitality – are structurally excluded …” . It further notes that “The National Employer Survey suggests that over four in ten employers (44 per cent) state that it is not possible for their employees to work remotely” highlighting that for a significant portion of the economy RW may be a non-starter due to operational constraints.

The WRC’S primary function is to ensure that employers comply with the procedures when a request for RW is made. Employers must consider the request having regard to their own business needs and the employee’s reasons for requesting RW. Employers are further obliged to respond within a specified timeframe, and if approved, an agreement outlining the arrangement must be signed by both parties; if denied, written reasons must be provided.

Commutes and WRC cases

One criticism of the report is that it adopted a soft focus approach to the complaints lodged with the WRC. The report stated that as of the 29th January 2026, the WRC had received 70 individual complaints. The stark statistic that emerged from the report was that only one complaint had been upheld (on a technicality) since the enactment of the legislation over two years ago. Last month, there was another rare employee victory in the anonymised case of A Recruitment Advisor v A Recruitment Company. While allowances should be made for complaints resolved through mediation or withdrawn, the success rate remains undeniably low.

This demonstrates that employers may have the whip hand, as the report concedes that “neither the WRC nor the Labour Courts are empowered to assess the merits of the employer’s decision, nor are they empowered to overturn a refusal of remote working.” The Labour Court in it’s first reported judgment on remote work recently affirmed this approach in the Musaev v TikTok Technology Ltd appeal.

A deep dive into the above case law suggests hearings may not provide a level playing field. Employees often appear as lay litigants and may be outmanoeuvred by employers who retain legal or HR representation. The report offers no critical analysis of this equality of arms issue or indeed the broader questions of access to legal aid and justice.  

The report maintains a laissez faire view, suggesting that the legislation is “a constructive catalyst for negotiation” and often drives compromise between employees and employers. It concludes that no legislative changes are proposed, asserting that the Act is operating effectively. An enhanced code of practice on the right to request RW is however to be developed.

Possible future trends

In February, a Private Members’ Bill was introduced in the Dáil, to provide for an entitlement for employees to RW arrangements where reasonably practicable. However, the bill was defeated but the pressure for reform is mounting, not only from trade unions like Fórsa and the Financial Services Union. Geopolitical instability including the Middle East conflict may yet force the Government’s hand. The International Energy Agency has recently urged governments to encourage people to work from home where possible.

Moreover, there may be wider grounds under Irish contract law (beyond the WRC and the 2023 Act) for aggrieved employees to litigate in the courts, arguing for an implied right to RW based on custom and practice or on discrimination grounds. Irish public sector employees could also in theory invoke the doctrine of legitimate expectation.

In the recent landmark case of Chandler v Westpac Bank, the Fair Work Commission in New South Wales, Australia granted the employee a permanent right to work from home. The commission ruled that “Ms Chandler’s work can be performed completely remotely. She has been working remotely for a number of years and doing so very successfully…the evidence here does not establish that there were reasonable business grounds for the refusal.” The Commission further held that not making an order would be seriously prejudicial to the applicant, particularly given that the family had relocated further from the workplace during an earlier period of RW.

It must be emphasised that this decision is fact-specific and would not be legally binding in Ireland, although it could carry persuasive authority as a judgement from another common law jurisdiction.

Melbourne is taking a punt

Even more radical is the trajectory that the neighbouring Australian state of Victoria is taking. Premier Jacinta Allan has publicly committed to implementing work from home laws coming into effect on the 1st September 2026. The Equal Opportunity Amendment (Work from Home) Bill 2026 was introduced in the state parliament in mid-June. It proposes that an employee has a right to work from home for two days per week, if it is reasonable for the employee to work from home.  In addition, the bill would mandate an employer to pay reasonable costs for an eligible employee, which includes essential equipment (such as hardware and software) and provide secure access to the employer’s information systems.

Enthusiastic commentators have described this hybrid model as having the potential to be a social revolution for women, caregivers, people with disabilities and pensioners. The environmentally friendly aspect of the policy is also widely seen as a positive. However,  opponents including some employer representatives, have criticised the plans as  anti business and constituting state government overreach in conflict with federal law, labelling  it a populist announcement made ahead of an upcoming state election.

Australia has earned a stellar reputation for pioneering legislation in recent years. In a country well known for cutting tall poppies down to size, even Victoria’s legislative ambition will do well to withstand the test of economic realities.

Anthony Fay is an Irish employment law solicitor, admitted also in New South Wales, Australia. He is a former winner of the Irish Law Awards - Sole Practitioner of the Year.