For millions of UK employees the shift towards remote working triggered by the coronavirus lockdowns merely meant a better work-life balance, but for Emma*, an office administrator from the Midlands whose husband has a disability and relies on her for care, it was “a lifeline”.
Even after Covid restrictions lifted in 2021 she continued to mostly work from home, until she was told last autumn “out of the blue” that she had to attend the office more, though she says no problems had been reported with her output and only “vague reasons” were given.
“I said I couldn’t do it as care costs £35 an hour here, it was just unaffordable. They weren’t going to budge, so I had to resign.”
Emma has since filed a legal claim for constructive dismissal and will be taking her case to an employment tribunal. She is among dozens of people – some employed by big British brands, others by smaller companies or in the public sector – who shared with the Guardian their difficulties with an employer’s push to reduce remote working.
Respondents to an online callout said they had lodged internal grievances after they were asked to work from the office going forward, either full-time or part-time, with some saying they were taking legal action against their employer or considering doing so. Others said they had opted for voluntary redundancy over the issue, had quit their roles or were looking to leave soon, as some of their colleagues had already done.
Some employees felt they had been treated unfairly and potentially illegally by their employers when they were asked to return to the office at short notice after lengthy periods of hybrid or remote working. Some said they were awaiting their employer’s decision on a flexible working request and would pursue an employment tribunal if it was not granted because they believed there were no reasonable grounds for a refusal.
Such legal action over back-to-desk edicts is on the rise as increasing numbers of companies advocate a minimum number of days attending company premises or a five-day return. The chief executive of Boots, Seb James, who in March ordered staff back in for the full week, is one of many bosses who has suggested that remote workers miss out on the benefits of in-person interaction. A judge at an employment tribunal case brought earlier this year agreed that there were “weaknesses with remote working”, ruling against the request of a senior manager at the UK Financial Conduct Authority to work at home full-time.
However, the vast majority of those who got in touch opposed blanket return-to-office directives, suggesting that they were arbitrary, or more about “having bums on seats” in costly office facilities. Many felt that arguments that working on-site was better for productivity were undermined by the fact that their open-plan offices or workplaces were loud and stressful or had a limited number of desks that had to be booked in advance.
Jennie, an NHS administration worker from the north of England, said she quit her job this summer after she was threatened with disciplinary action if she did not start commuting hundreds of kilometres to the office with immediate effect, after years of working remotely from a different city. She has taken legal advice on pursuing an employment tribunal because she believes not enough notice was given.
“I’m very determined to take this to court,” she said. “I loved my job. I want compensation, and my solicitor has told me I’ve got a case.”
Staff at the Office for National Statistics are refusing to comply with an instruction to spend two days a week in offices and voted in April to go on strike over the issue, a case that was referenced by some who got in touch.
Kate, a 28-year-old from the south of England, was one of several respondents who said they had been hired for fully remote positions during or even before the pandemic and were furious about having been asked unexpectedly or abruptly to come into to the office. Reasons for wanting to work remotely at least some of the time included caring responsibilities, school runs, health problems or expensive and time-consuming commutes.
Like others, she said she had been hired during the pandemic and been “promised opportunities to progress”. However, her employer began making all promotions subject to a reapplication for an office-based position, which she said disproportionately affected female employees.
Laura, a corporate accountant from southern England, said she was one of several colleagues who had made flexible working requests this year after her employer, a large hospitality brand, had ordered all employees to be in the office at least four days a week.
Remote working had meant that she could put in longer hours while being at home with her primary school-age children, as well as offering more flexibility connecting with overseas colleagues in different time zones. The company initially refused her request to have the option to work from home at least three days a week but after she appealed, she was given two days working from home.
“There is no business reason which would negatively impact my employer [if I work from home]. They don’t look at us as individuals with personal needs and different roles.”
Her employer’s primary argument for a return to the office, she said, had been “fairness”, because some staff were in roles that made it impossible to work from home. If her request had been refused, she added, she would have taken legal action.
Howard, a management consultant in his 50s from London, disagreed with many other respondents’ views on remote working, arguing that it had led to considerable problems in the day-to-day operations at his workplace. It had hit younger staff, he said, who were struggling to learn on the job while isolated at home.
“It takes much longer to find out information, or who to talk to,” he said. “Everyone wants to take their time and be at home, but I can see constantly that the things that need to be talked about are only talked about in an emergency.”
A number of people with disabilities or health problems, as well as some single parents, said their need to work flexibly or remotely had been disregarded by “draconian” and “inflexible” company-wide orders, and that they were now merely granted short-term exceptions that were subject to frequent reviews.
Charlie, an expert in workplace needs assessments who often advises clients who have a disability or are neurodivergent, agreed that it has been getting harder for such workers to get their employer to sign off on suitable arrangements.
Widespread negative assumptions about home working, he said, had led many employers to issue sweeping back-to-the-office orders that were not in their own or their staff’s best interests, and potentially in breach of the Equality Act.
“I think modern management is largely about conformity and compliance, but the people I work with have specific needs, many of which have legal protections. Employers are at risk of exposing themselves to quite serious legal issues, but it’s also bad for business. Productivity in this country has been flat for a long time, and this inflexibility is one of the reasons behind it.”
The high cost of living was the most common reason given for opposing a full-time or near full-time return to the office. Working from home, respondents said, had allowed them to ditch cars, reduce childcare costs, save thousands on train commutes, petrol and parking costs, or even move to cheaper areas.
Those trying to recruit staff to both the private and public sector said it had become much harder because their employers refused to allow remote working, which was turning off many applicants who were unwilling or unable to relocate to more expensive areas closer to the workplace.
Janet, a head of post-production in the TV industry, said her employer has a strict “no remote working policy” these days. “I’ve lost out on some great candidates as they don’t want to pay London rental prices, nor the expensive travel costs, when the technology is there to support remote working,” she said.
“One of the upsides of the pandemic was that it really levelled out the world of work. Everyone worked remotely and it worked brilliantly. So many young people have left the industry now, because they couldn’t afford to come to work. It makes me really angry.”
*All names have been changed for anonymity
