Does an employee working from home receive a home occupation allowance under all circumstances?

Professional life sometimes ends in court. In August's "It's My Job," we explore disputes between employees and employers.

The facts date back to 2018. A salesperson brought the matter before the industrial tribunal. He was in dispute with his employer and was demanding payment of various sums. Among these sums, he was claiming compensation for occupying his home, as when he wasn't on the road, he worked from home. The employee believed he was entitled to this compensation because his employer had not provided him with an office within the company. In this type of situation, case law generally upholds the employee's request. What is controversial, however, is that the salesperson was claiming this compensation for the past five years, which his employer disputes.

The Court of Cassation settled the dispute last March and ruled that compensation was due for the last two years. But in this instance, it "threw a stone in the pond," says lawyer Corinne Baron-Charbonnier, by going well beyond the question posed to her.

In a ruling published in the Bulletin, which gives it some importance, the Court specifies that the occupation of an employee's home for professional purposes constitutes an "interference in their private life." It reiterates that the employee can claim compensation when they do not have an office at their disposal within the company. But also, and this is the big news, when "teleworking is agreed upon," it says. "Agreed upon between the employer and the employee." When everyone agrees, even if the employee has an office within the company. "This is the first time that the Court of Cassation has ruled on this point, while the debates remain lively on the coverage of teleworking expenses," the lawyer emphasizes.

The prospect of covering a portion of the rent, heating, and electricity costs of their teleworking employees is not exactly appealing to companies. Especially since the Court of Cassation does not specify how this compensation should be calculated.

For now, lawyers defending employers are waiting to see how this new case law will be interpreted in the labor courts and before the courts of appeal during upcoming disputes. "Philosophically, the home occupation allowance aims to compensate for damages," asserts Corinne Baron-Charbonnier. When an employee requests to work remotely for personal convenience, can they really claim coercion? The debates in the courts promise to be lively.