Peers have expressed concerns that Labour’s proposed reforms to workers’ rights might entangle businesses in extensive litigation initiated by employees seeking the option to work from home.
A recent report suggests that employment tribunals could be inundated with requests for flexible working arrangements unless Labour provides a clear definition of the right to work from home (WFH).
Employers have been cautioned that they might face lawsuits from remote workers who experience accidents, such as tripping or spilling hot beverages, since employers maintain legal obligations towards their home-based staff.
According to the House of Lords Home-based Working Committee, working from home could support government initiatives aimed at reintegrating disabled individuals and those with long-term illnesses into the workforce.
However, the report also highlights potential negative outcomes from the rise of home or hybrid working, such as the possibility of mass employee strikes if they are compelled to return to traditional office environments.
The Lords report warns that Labour’s proposed changes to flexible working, as part of the Employment Rights Bill, might lead to prolonged litigation in employment tribunals unless these changes are clearly articulated.
The controversial Bill, which is currently making its way through Parliament, stipulates that all employees will have the right to request flexible working regardless of their length of service.
If the Bill becomes law, bosses would only be able to reject such requests where it is ‘reasonable’ for them to do so. But Peers have warned that ‘it is currently unclear how “reasonable” will be defined’.
Peers have exposed how WFH is ‘unequal’ and most often enjoyed by university-educated professionals living in London, with this risking ‘exacerbating inequalities between different workers’
The House of Lords Home-based Working Committee report, titled Is working from home working?, also raises the prospect of workers suing their bosses for hurting themselves while WFH
The report says: ‘It is important that the Government gets this right: without a clear definition, there is a risk of years of litigation at a time when the employment tribunal system is already struggling.’
The committee has urged the Government to produce statutory guidance that defines the ‘reasonable’ requirement so that employment tribunals aren’t flooded with cases.
Baroness Rosalind Scott, the chair of the committee, said: ‘While we don’t expect the Government to legislate further on a subject that is best handled by employers and workers, it should provide relevant guidance and promote already existing guidance more widely.
‘As it implements the Employment Rights Bill, it should ensure its changes to flexible working requests do not put undue pressure on the employment tribunal system.’
The report, titled Is working from home working?, also raises the prospect of workers suing their bosses for hurting themselves while WFH.
‘Even if their employees work from home, employers still have legal responsibilities towards them, including in the context of health and safety legislation,’ it adds.
‘To minimise the risks of conflict and litigation, it is vital that employers are aware of their responsibilities.’
Peers have also exposed how WFH is ‘unequal’ and most often enjoyed by university-educated professionals living in London, with this risking ‘exacerbating inequalities between different workers’.
And they warn that workers – including civil servants – could strike en masse if they are forced to return to working from the office.
The report says: ‘Some workers may be prepared to trigger industrial action, such as strikes, if they do not agree with an office attendance mandate.’
Peers have recommended that the Government review the discrepancy between its 60 per cent mandated office attendance policy for civil servants and its plans to close 11 London office buildings.
‘These policies may conflict with one another, and if they cannot be reconciled, the Government may need to decide which it wants to prioritise,’ it adds.
This raises the prospect of civil servants working from home even more than the current 40 per cent of the time, in a move that has the potential to embarrass ministers.
The report concludes: ‘The long-term social and economic effects of remote and hybrid working are unclear, and may yet be negative. They have been difficult to measure so far due to the novelty of widespread remote and hybrid working patterns.
‘There are risks concerning innovation, collaboration, productivity, and skills development. If insufficiently addressed, these factors may impact organisational performance in the long-term.’
The Government said it is grateful to Baroness Scott for the report and will consider the findings before setting out a response next year.
A Department for Business and Trade spokesman said: ‘Flexible working, including homeworking, can help achieve a better work life balance and break down barriers for carers, parents and disabled people.
‘We are making changes through the Employment Rights Bill to make it more likely that flexible working requests are accepted and are fixing the employment tribunal system by ensuring more cases are resolved before reaching them.’
