The Covid-19 pandemic has led to profound changes in various aspects of society, above all altering our conception of the workplace. One of the most striking changes has been the rapid expansion of the remote working model, popularly known as the “home office”.
Although remote working existed before the pandemic, it experienced mass expansion and adoption during the most critical periods of the outbreak. Companies, faced with social distancing restrictions and uncertainties about safety in face-to-face environments, were forced to implement and consolidate the home office as an emergency measure.
Today, four years after the start of the pandemic, there is a movement among workers across Brazil to prefer to work from home, even when the country is free of the pandemic. Despite the control of the spread of the virus, there are still lawsuits being heard by the Labor Courts over issues related to the post-pandemic scenario, especially with regard to maintaining remote work.
The move by companies to resume face-to-face work has had a major impact on the labor market, given the preference of some workers to continue working remotely or even in a hybrid way.
In most cases, the change in working methods will lead to an increase in turnover at companies, as workers may look for new jobs where they can perform their activities at least in a hybrid way.
In more drastic cases, there are legal repercussions, mainly based on the need for constant care for family members or even the claim that the worker is at risk of Covid-19, despite the fact that the spread of the virus has already been controlled.
Because of this conflict between the employee’s interest in remaining in the remote system, as well as the movement of companies to return to face-to-face work, the Labor Courts have been receiving lawsuits filed in this regard, in favor of maintaining home office work.
Generally, the court decisions in these cases have been based on situations aimed at protecting the health of the worker or their family members, based on aspects in the Statute of the Elderly and the Statute of the Child and Adolescent.
An example of this was the decision handed down in a writ of mandamus by the Regional Labor Court of the 4th Region, which ruled that remote work should be maintained on the grounds that face-to-face work was not essential and that the worker needed to remain close to his son in the city of Porto Alegre/RS, where he provides services remotely.
Other situations involve issues of the worker’s personal health, such as the case judged by the Regional Labor Court of the 15th Region, which handed down a decision in which the employee claimed to be kept in the teleworking regime, on the grounds that she is part of the Covid-19 contamination risk group.
The court denied the employee’s request, based on the absence of a state of public health emergency, arguing that teleworking or immediate leave from work can no longer be sustained, since the emergency situation decreed as a result of the pandemic has already ended.
The most common cases in which employees are allowed to work from home are those in which they need to care for a family member. By way of example, the Regional Labor Court of the 20th Region upheld the decision that determined that the company should maintain the plaintiff’s remote work and refrain from requiring his physical presence in another state until the medical team responsible for his son’s treatment authorized the child’s relocation without prejudice to the treatment that had already begun.
Thus, although for some companies remote working has been an exceptional and necessary measure due to the crisis that has hit the country, the interest of workers in maintaining this type of regime remains. In some cases, the courts have ruled that it is necessary to maintain this work format, especially for workers who are psychologically debilitated or responsible for family members who need medical care.
However, it is worth noting that, in cases where there is a request to maintain the remote work regime, it is necessary to prove that the worker is unable to return to carrying out their activities in person, as well as to demonstrate that, regardless of the work regime, there is no influence on their duties and functions.
If you have any questions on the subject, our labor team is available to answer them.
