Back to the office or quietly quitting?
Over the past two years, many employees have adapted well to working remotely and learnt to enjoy the benefits that working from home brings.
Employers who appreciated the efforts of their staff to adapt to the pandemic may now find themselves at cross-roads. Many employers have expressed their irritation with the phenomena of WFH, for example, described as “an aberration” by David Solomon of Goldman Sachs. These views are only likely to have been heightened by the latest trend of quiet quitting, where employees choose to do the minimum amount of work that they can get away with in favour of a more fulfilling life outside work. In some quarters this is militating towards a culture of presenteeism, with bosses keen to see bums back on seats in the office. However, after several months of encouraging (and in some cases bribing) a return to the office, many employers’ efforts are being met with stubborn resistance from staff. Employees that have won new freedoms are refusing to budge. They assert that their productivity is heightened by winning back extra hours in their day freed up by the lack of travel. They argue that their mental health is improved by not having to navigate overcrowded trains, buses and tubes and they exhort the ESG benefits of putting less pressure on infrastructure and reducing carbon footprints. Those with caring responsibilities also cite, persuasively, the ability of spending more time with their families and the simplified caring logistics of homeworking.
So, for employers who want to increase office attendance, what can they do? It is likely that individuals’ contracts still have an office base as their primary location. Whilst employees’ may argue they have an implied right to increased flexibility because of their changed working patterns over the last couple of years, such an argument is not likely to succeed given the pandemic’s necessity of working from home, when it was a legal requirement for long periods of time. That said, we are seeing an increase in arguments that working patterns have become contractually binding due to custom and practice and, so far, there has been no reported case on the point.
Employees may seek to make formal applications for flexible working or raise grievances if the direction of travel is back to the office. Whilst the flexible working legislation itself lacks teeth; such an application allied with a grievance can be a first step to an indirect sex discrimination claim. The argument being that the employer has a “provision, criterion or practice” that requires employees to be in the office and this has a disproportionate impact on those with caring responsibilities, primarily women (a fact to which the Courts have given judicial notice in recent cases). To defend such a claim, the employer will need to objectively justify its position. There will be various sound business reasons expounded for requiring some office attendance (e.g. team collaboration, training and supervising juniors, mentoring). However, these are unlikely to cut the mustard in justifying full time office-based attendance and employers seeking to insist on full time attendance will be vulnerable to claims and legal liability.
But it is not just liability and cost that employers risk in refusing to entertain WFH. Organisations that don’t adapt to the changing needs of employees and society (in what remains a strong and buoyant labour market) may find themselves no longer an employer of choice and be regarded as out of touch. In August, it was reported that Apple is requiring staff to attend the office three days a week and at least one senior departure from the company to Google cited the RTO policy as the reason. Staff at Apple have apparently raised a petition arguing that such a practice stifles diversity and wellbeing. Inevitably this has been the subject of unattractive media headlines that Apple’s PR team and C-suite would have certainly preferred to avoid.
Whether “work” loses its status as a noun and returns to being a verb only remains to be seen but the battles around RTO vs WFH seem set to endure for some time.
For more information on the above please contact Nick Hurley or your usual Charles Russell Speechlys contact.
A partnership for progress
The rise of joint ventures in the UK’s life sciences sector.
The Art Net quotes Petra Warrington on how the Charities Act will impact restitution cases
A new law will give national museums significantly more power to deaccession works and make progress on restitution cases.
Swiss/UK secondments – the basics
A short guide to the key requirements to second workers from Switzerland to the UK and from the UK to Switzerland.
The Mail Online quotes David Gregory on the mini budget and changes to the real estate industry
"This is a step in the right direction, but further support for existing occupiers may be needed..."
The Financial Times quotes Paul Stone on Ofcom's probe into competition and big tech in the cloud market
"The probe may act as a catalyst for a full-blown market investigation..."
Limitation & the worthwhile test
When does time start to run for deliberate concealment claims? An insight into a Court of Appeal ruling which answers this question.
Paul Stone provides comment for City AM on the record fine against Google over Android phones
"This decision is a symbolic victory”
City AM quotes Paul Stone on the lawsuit facing Google re: anticompetitive conduct in the digital advertising market
"the lawsuits are a 'mirror image' of ongoing investigations by the CMA..."
FT Ignites Europe quotes Nick Hurley on quiet quitting in the asset management industry
"I cannot see any employers embracing quiet quitting as a concept. Most companies will see it as something to reduce or eliminate"
Jonathan Morley discusses the 'huge growth' in Gloucestershire driven by private capital for SoGlos
"Private investors are watching Gloucestershire closely and willing to invest in its businesses..."
UK Employment Law – A Guide
Looking to learn more about employment law? Discover exactly how it protects you with our complete guide.
The Grocer quotes Jamie Cartwright on the Celia Marsh inquest and allergen action
“Natasha’s Law responded to a perceived lack of accessible information on ingredients for consumers on the product itself..."
London’s role in the growing UK Life Sciences sector
Mark Kildea, Howard de Walden’s Chief Executive and Cara Imrailo discuss Life Sciences opportunities in London
Property Patter: The Notorious ESG?
ESG is everywhere.
Lesley O'Leary writes for The Law Society Gazette on law firm strategy
‘You need to have a frank discussion about the things that matter to clients’
Melanie Tomlin explains the measure of damages recoverable in defects claims for Building Magazine
Essential law: Defects, part four
The Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme
The aim of the scheme is to help organisations identify energy efficiency savings, to support and increase good energy management.
Aidan Welton writes for P3 Pharmacy on property considerations before selling a pharmacy business
There’s lots to consider ahead of time if you’re planning the sale of your pharmacy business...
Melania Constable writes for Property Week on restructuring in the property sector
It is anticipated this judgment may open the gates to further uptake of RPs in the property sector...