Business
courtneym
I decided to take a deeper dive into one particular HR challenge as articulated in my last two articles about new pandemic-related workplace issues. The issue of working remotely as a permanent option for workers is real and therefore merits further exploration.
This is one of particular interest to me given its scope and the fact that it considers reshaping how we work, how we manage, discipline and monitor workers and their output and behaviours.
Companies are now mandating workers to return to the office because vaccines are now abundantly available and public health guidelines and mandates have been revised. This means that we are better able to reduce risks and better manage the spread of the virus, subject of course to responsible behaviour of individuals.
However, some workers are resisting, and some may have very valid reasons. Initially, the decision would have been a reactive one, issued across the board to those workers who can perform their tasks remotely.
The question, therefore, to be resolved is what is the advantage to employers to force all employees back to the office.
As I previously advised, employers should be flexible and consider an empathetic approach. This should however be done within the right legal framework with risk management considerations.
Let’s now explore the first area of consideration for employers. Given that remote employees are no longer required to commute to work, buy lunch, uniforms and incur all the other related expenses, it will be justified to revisit remote workers’ compensation in an effort to be fair to the commuting “present” workers.
The other relevant considerations are:
a. Terms of engagement – will employees need amended contract terms with new arrangements for work location, hours of work, reporting relationships etc.
b. Setting up and purchasing of equipment – who will be responsible for purchasing, maintenance and insurance cost?
c. Policies for storage, ownership of confidential information and general security.
d. Criteria for submitting and assessing work.
e. The system for performance appraisals and improvement.
Like everything under the sun, there are advantages and disadvantages for companies to consider before making permanent their work from home arrangements, which I will now highlight below.
Studies have shown that allowing staff to have that flexibility after changing from a ridged work arrangement has led to higher productivity. One of my employees who lives in Claxton Bay, and who previously worked in Port of Spain, said she would leave home at 5.30 am, which would mean an additional hour of preparation time and return home around 6 pm. That is roughly 4.5 hours a day lost in preparation and commute. That is 17.5 hours a week and 70 hours every month of unproductive time, which could be better utilised with family or invested back at work.
I am sure it must be about the same for employees in the East-West Corridor.
Making these kinds of allowances will also motivate staff and hopefully, they should not be so inclined to search elsewhere. This, will no doubt keep turnover costs down and productivity at the same level or even higher, once a monitoring system is in place.
In the event a company wants to hire a worker specifically to work-from-home, they then have a wider pool to choose from, given that persons with certain disabilities or home situations can now be attracted to apply.
Workers who don’t have to commute (especially public) will not be open to certain security risks, exposure to health, and even the stress in traffic. There are some cost benefits in the area of utility, office space rentals, office supplies (tea, coffee, water etc).
Some of the disadvantages are monitoring, teams not gelling properly, added miscommunication in the absence of physical presence, etc.
There is the issue of security of information storage and access to be carefully considered. Also, not all jobs are suited for work from home, and therefore can negatively impact the staff morale of those required to be in the office. Not to mention considerations for monitoring performance, cost of infrastructure, home distractions, and potential burnout etc.
According to Australia’s Fair Works Act 2009, employees who have worked for the same employer for at least 12 months can request flexible working arrangements such as changes to hours, patterns or location of work. They would have to satisfy certain specific conditions such as having responsibility for the care of a child in school or younger, have a disability, 55 or older, experiencing family or domestic violence or providing support to a member of a household who is/were a victim of domestic violence.
The company can refuse the request on reasonable business grounds and has the management prerogative to decide what is in the best interest of the company.
In an interesting recent decision from Australia, Mc Kean v Red Energy Pty Ltd[2020] FWC5688, Mr McKean claimed constructive dismissal after the employer denied his request to purchase a desk in order to work from home. The company did supply him with a laptop, adjustable chair, ergonomic assessments, access to an occupational therapist and online resources.
The Fairwork Commission found that the support the company gave him was sufficient and that the employee’s request was unreasonable.
This case is cited here, not only for its decision and obvious implications but more so for the fact that a significant body of industrial relations jurisprudence is emerging within the Commonwealth relating to remote employees. I predict that this would be happening in our jurisdiction sooner rather than later.
