Being forced to move back to dublin to work from the office 4 out of 5 days.

It really isn't.

But who am I only a line manager and professional in a firm of specialist consultants, who have spent the last 18 months considering the implications of longer term 'working from home' and greater demand from our people for precisely that.

The fact is, family friendly policies, for those who have such commitments, are only for people who have such commitments! They have to be applied for, with details of those commitments supplied, in a confidential process between employee and employer. A three hour commute does not qualify. And being refused greater flexible working, for a reason that doesn't qualify in the first place, certainly does not constitute discrimination. In fact, I'd be interested in the source which suggested to you that it may be.

Anyway, the OP is free to get advice from a solicitor or HR specialist, but it will be the same outcome, only he will be €250 lighter.

You were asked 2 come In 1 day a week which you say you ignored , and now you want them to meet you half way by say coming in 2 days a week.

If every else in the company also ignored the 1 day a week policy I can see why they are cracking down on the WFH culture.

I know of at least one big company who are going to make a lot of redundancies soon. Currently they have a policy of staff working from home 4 days a week.

A friend working in their HR department told me that hey have been told by head office to select the names of the staff who can be made redundant. And then make them all come back to the office for 5 days a week. If they get enough people to leave from that then they save themselves on redundancy.

I said that might be constructive dismissal. My friend said they have a whole legal department there who decided that they could do this. Some cost benefit calculation.

That said though, I think if working from home suits anyone and then they are told to go back to the office that they should actually straight away be looking for a new job that suits them better. Who wants to commute when you can just join a different company where you dont have to commute. I would be out the door like a shot if i was brought back into the office for more days than i am at the moment. I can just about tolerate the days im in now. It would kill me to have to go in more.

Family friendly policies have to be for everyone, no matter what there status is. Otherwise it is discrimination. The source who have suggested it is discrimination is the irish legislation, namely the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015. A person is said to be discriminated against if they are treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the nine grounds. Family status is one of the nine grounds.

If an employer treats Mary less favourably than John because of her race that is discrimination. If an employer treats Mary less favourably than John because of her sexual orientation than that is discrimination. If an employer treats Mary less favourable than John because of her family status that is discrimination.

If an employer had a policy that said white people didn't have to attend the office but black people did, that would be discrimination. If an employer had a policy that straight people didnt havd to attend the office but gay people did that would be discrimination. If an employer had a policy that people who didn't have kids could work from home and people with kids had to attend the office that would be discrimination.

During your 18 months work I'd love to know how you came to the conclusion it isn't discrimination.

Has there been any difficulty replacing them?

Absolutely zero issues, we were completely over subscribed when I opened the job adverts.

This is the key I think. It only takes a few people applying their own rules to a situation for an employer to turn around and say “This just isn’t worth the hassle” and scrap the whole thing.

Would you take a pay cut to be allowed wht days a week? the rent savings would make it possaible i imagine.

This nonsense again? Plenty of places have full WFH and more have majority WFH and lots of people get promoted from those availing of WFH. Productivity is easily enough measured for those working on site, in office or from home in most jobs

This has nothing to do with the OP’s issue though. If your company is requesting you to be in an office, your choices are to be in the office, or leave the job.

If you're not going to the office and your colleagues are, then definitely, without a doubt you have less chance of advancement. You can call it nonsense to comfort yourself all you want, but being socially available and outgoing is more important when it comes to getting higher level positions. You can quietly do your job at home and hit all your targets, but ultimately unless you are irreplaceable (vast majority of people are replaceable) then they're not going to promote you if you opt to stay home because it just looks bad. They'll think you are good at the kind of job that doesn't require in-person interaction, which doesn't apply to high level positions.

But who am I only a line manager and professional in a firm of specialist consultants, who have spent the last 18 months considering the implications of longer term 'working from home' and greater demand from our people for precisely that.

There’s no need for that. For instance, I’m Batman, and this is the Internet, where anyone can claim to be whomever and whatever they want, it’s irrelevant and doesn’t make their argument.

That being said…

Family friendly policies have to be for everyone, no matter what there status is. Otherwise it is discrimination. The source who have suggested it is discrimination is the irish legislation, namely the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015. A person is said to be discriminated against if they are treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the nine grounds. Family status is one of the nine grounds.

It’s not quite so clear cut as that either. Certainly it’s discrimination, but whether the policy amounts to unlawful discrimination (be it either direct or indirect discrimination), is what matters. The employer should be able to demonstrate the legitimate aim of the policy, and the Acts permit positive action. The OP is not at any disadvantage because of their family status, they are at a disadvantage because of their proximity to their workplace. They are not being treated unfairly as all employees are subject to the same conditions, and those employees with children are not being treated unfairly either. That’s notwithstanding the fact that the OP doesn’t have children who they are responsible for, and other employees do, so their circumstances aren’t similar on the family status grounds either.

The last thing I’d recommend doing in the OP’s circumstances is to go claiming they are the victim of unlawful discrimination by their employer, and instead would suggest they sit down with their manager and try and work out a more reasonable and amicable solution. It’s a tough spot to be in, but there’s no need to make matters worse by being antagonistic towards their current employer.