A woman who launched a tribunal claim after her request to work from home full time was rejected has lost her case.
Elizabeth Wilson worked as a manager at the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and had been working entirely from home since the Covid-19 pandemic struck in early 2020. When the pandemic eased, the FCA began a policy of asking staff to come to the office two days a week.
In December 2022, Wilson submitted a flexible working request to continue working remotely every day, arguing that she had continued to be a high performer working this way.
In early March 2023, she learnt that her request had been refused. In a letter, her manager said: “I recognise you have performed very well during the period when you have worked from home and have built effective relationships with colleagues despite not meeting in person.”
However, the manager had turned down the request because of the “detrimental impact on performance and quality of output” working from home could mean.
The FCA said she would miss face-to-face training sessions, departmental away days and meetings, and would not be able to coach any new team members. Wilson managed four staff at the time of her request.
“Your ability to input in management strategy meetings and be involved in in-person collaboration will also be negatively impacted,” it added.
She lodged an appeal, but this was also rejected in late March. Dominic Cashman, the FCA’s director of authorisations, said: “I also believe it is reasonable for the FCA to conclude that it would still be better and of real benefit to you and, in particular, your team and your team’s performance, if they were able to connect with you in person in the office.”
Wilson then lodged a tribunal claim, claiming the FCA had not communicated the outcome of her appeal within the statutory decision period. She accused the regulator of rejecting her request because of “incorrect facts”.
At tribunal, employment judge Robert Richter found her claim of time breach to be correct, by 21 days. It made a compensatory award to Wilson of £643, equivalent to one week’s pay. However, her claim that her request had been based on incorrect facts was not upheld.
Richter said in his judgment: “It is the experience of many who work using technology that it is not well suited to the fast-paced interplay of exchanges which occur in, for example, planning meetings or training events when rapid discussion can occur on topics.”
He added that it would not be incorrect for her manager to identify these potential risks to her performance, and that expectations around face-to-face training and coaching, among other activities, were “elements of the work of the claimant which the respondent legitimately expected her to complete”.
“This is a case which raises a key issue in the modern workplace and which will, no doubt, be the subject of continued litigation. Ultimately, it may be the case that each situation requires its own consideration,” the judgment continued.
