This content was published on May 24, 2020 12:30 PM
Whether an employee did or did not rent an additional room or a larger apartment to work from home was also irrelevant according to the court’s ruling.
German-language paper Tages-Anzeiger reports that Switzerland’s top court has ruled that employers are required to contribute to employees’ rent payments if they are expected to work from home.
According to the paperexternal link, the federal court decision, which has not been made public, concerns an accounting firmexternal link that had let an employee work from home.
The company argued that they had not reached an agreement with the employee ahead of time and therefore was not obligated to cover part of his rent. The court rejected this argument and added that the employee could even request rent compensation retroactively after leaving the company.
Whether an employee did or did not rent an additional room or a larger apartment to work from home was also irrelevant according to the court’s ruling. The judges estimated a monthly compensation of CHF150 ($154) for the employee’s rent to be justified.
This is the first time Switzerland’s highest court has dealt with the topic of rent allowances for employees working from home. Thomas Geiser, a professor of labor law at the University of St Gallen, told the paper that the verdict is not surprising as the “law obliges employers to reimburse their employees for all expenses incurred to carry out their work”.
Geiser points out that the decision applies to employees who work from home upon the employer’s request. However, employees that work from home on their own behest may not receive rental compensation.
For some trade union representatives this leaves out some workers, who may not be contractually obliged to work from home but may be driven to do so because of a range of reasons. Luca Cirigliano, General Secretary of the Swiss Confederation of Trade Unions, told the paper that companies often use flexible workstations in order to save money on office rent.
It is extremely unfair as well as illegal for employers to pass costs on to employees in this way, Cirigliano told the paper.
The decision comes during an unprecedented increase in working from home due to the coronavirus pandemic. Some employers are exploring whether to extend flexible work arrangements and make “home office” a mainstay for some employees.
Covid-19 impact Swiss want to work from home more frequently after pandemic Four out of five Swiss residents say they would like to work from home more regularly after the coronavirus pandemic is over, according to a survey. This content was published on April 2, 2020 12:30 PM See in another language: 1 See in another language: 1 Languages: 1 Arabic (ar) السويسريون يرغبون في العمل من المنزل بوتيرة أكبر بعد انتهاء الأزمة
The citizens' meeting How the Swiss are moving back to the mountains
jakeshervin on May 26th, 2020 at 14:50 UTC »
Many of you miss an important detail: "Geiser points out that the decision applies to employees who work from home upon the employer’s request. However, employees that work from home on their own behest may not receive rental compensation."
justinkimball on May 26th, 2020 at 14:28 UTC »
In an ideal world, yes, corporations ought to pay you for the space you allocate to them, the energy and internet that they use, etc.
In the real world, this will simply encourage companies to not allow WFH.
shes_got_a_way on May 26th, 2020 at 14:25 UTC »
Feel like the headline is a bit misleading. Sounds like a more accurate headline would be that changing an employee’s job to remote after hiring requires a re-negotiation of salary and benefits.
Otherwise I don’t really see the point of the law. If rent reimbursement of a certain level is required, won’t companies just lower their salaries accordingly? Nothing I can see could stop them from doing that legally, especially if all their jobs are remote and not just some.
But the idea of a misleading contract kind of makes sense. If you originally took the job at a certain salary thinking that a free dedicated office space was included, theoretically maybe you would have negotiated differently with not receiving that benefit. I personally wouldn’t, as remote work is a perk rather than a detriment in my view. But some people might feel differently.