The question of when working from home is acceptable – and when you really should be at an office desk – is becoming one of modern life’s conundrums.
An employment tribunal has suggested it may be OK to remain at home if you need to supervise workers, even if it means attending an important meeting remotely.
The thorny issue surfaced during a hearing into the case of an IT director who requested to attend a meeting by video call because gardeners were doing work at his home.
His boss was upset and questioned whether he was treating the meeting seriously, but the tribunal said his decision to stay at home did not constitute “blameworthy” behaviour.
The tribunal in Croydon, south London, heard that Ben Wicken had been scheduled to meet the managing director of the IT services company Akita Systems, Christophe Boudet, in person to attempt to resolve a disagreement.
Wicken asked if he could attend a mediation meeting on Teams. The tribunal ruling said: “The claimant [Wicken] called Mr Boudet and asked if they could move the meeting to a Teams meeting and change the time … as he needed to work from home for the rest of the week because he had work being done in the garden and so he would need to be there.”
Boudet was said to be “very disappointed” and told Wicken that it appeared he was not taking the process seriously, the tribunal was told.
At a follow-up mediation meeting, an external human resources professional questioned Wicken’s desire to prioritise working from home to “sort out” his gardeners rather than going into the office for the one-to-one meeting.
Initially, the tribunal heard, Wicken could not understand what he had done wrong but then conceded “in hindsight” he should have communicated better with Boudet.
Wicken felt “attacked” at the meeting and told Boudet he thought he was “undervalued” before breaking down in tears. The human resources professional later told him the directors of the company had lost trust and confidence in him, and he resigned the following month.
The tribunal found fault in elements of the way Wicken’s case had been handled and said it amounted to unfair dismissal.
The employment judge Lisa Burge added that Wicken had not contributed to his dismissal.
She said: “The respondent [Akita] submits that the claimant admitted that his decision to prioritise arrangements with his gardener over attendance at a one-to-one mediation follow-up meeting was a mistake and that he refused to cooperate with the grievance investigation.
“However, these actions, in the context of the facts found and detailed, do not constitute ‘culpable or blameworthy’ conduct.”
