Remote workers and returning to the office

During and following the pandemic there was a dramatic increase in the numbers of employees working from home all or some of the time. However, with the pendulum now swinging the other way and stories of staff being forced to return to the office dominating the news, the recent Employment Tribunal (ET) decision of Akhtar v Calrom has highlighted the care employers must take when dismissing employees for refusing to return.

Ms Akhtar was a software developer working for Cheshire-based company, Calrom. Originally based in Calrom’s Cheshire office, Ms Akhtar took a career break in August 2020, during the pandemic. The career break was extended and due to end in January 2022, by which time Ms Akhtar, who suffered from anxiety and claimed that she could not live independently, had gone to live in Pakistan with her family.

When informed by Calrom that her career break would be coming to an end and she would be required to return to work in Cheshire, she proposed that she remain in Pakistan (in her family’s village outside of Lahore) and work remotely. Ms Akhtar was informed that working from Pakistan was not considered to be viable for several reasons, including:

• Poor internet connectivity;
• frequent power outages;
• time difference; and
• the need to retrain her after a prolonged absence from the business.

Ms Akhtar’s career break was then extended for a final time until August 2022, and she was told that, if she did not return to the UK by then, her capability to continue performing her role would be assessed.

By the end of August 2022, Ms Akhtar had not returned to the UK because she was anxious about travelling to the UK alone. Calrom, deeming her failure to return to work after a two-year career break to amount to a resignation, wrote to Ms Akhtar on 31 August 2022 terminating her employment. In response, Ms Akhtar issued proceedings in the ET for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.

The ET held that Ms Akhtar had not been discriminated against by Calrom for refusing to let her work from Pakistan, but she had been unfairly dismissed. Whilst Calrom had genuine reasons for not allowing Ms Akhtar to work remotely from Pakistan, it did not provide her with adequate warning that her employment would be terminated if she did not return to the UK, nor did it take the necessary steps to conduct a fair dismissal process before serving notice of dismissal.

The case will now be listed for a remedy hearing where the issue of compensation will be addressed.

This case illustrates that it is always important to follow the correct procedures before dismissing an employee, regardless of whether they are a remote worker and irrespective of whether it appears to the employer that following such a process is futile (because it would not change the outcome).

If you have any questions about this case or remote working, please call us on 0113 207 0000.