The mother of a teenage sex assault victim has won €2,500 in an employment rights case, after her boss revoked a part-time remote work deal set up to help her look after her daughter and ordered her back to work with one day’s notice.The award was made to the administrative worker in a wholly-anonymised decision under the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 published on Monday by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC). It is the first time a worker has won compensation for not getting four weeks’ notice, in writing, for the termination of a remote work arrangement, and is the maximum award permitted by the act.The worker told a hearing last year that her 13-year-old daughter was “seriously sexually assaulted” by another minor at her school in late 2024, had suicidal ideation, and was self-harming.She asked for and received permission to cut her in-office working days from five to three, which was put in writing and signed by her company’s human resources manager.The worker said the arrangement helped “greatly” while her daughter attended a hospital sexual assault unit for tests and for the taking of forensic evidence.The worker says she was still able to do her work from home while supporting her daughter through the process of the Garda investigation. The tribunal noted the worker’s evidence that a file was being sent forward to the Director of Public Prosecutions.However, in mid-December that year, the managing director of the firm returned from abroad, claimed the work-from-home arrangement was “not working out”, and revoked it with immediate effect, the worker said. The complainant was told to be back in the office the following day, she said.The managing director’s position on the remote work agreement signed with HR was: “That document does not exist,” the worker said.The complainant quit in early 2025 after a period of sick leave, she said.The managing director’s evidence at the WRC was: “We don’t do that type of arrangement in this company.”Hugh Hegarty of Peninsula Business Services, for the employer, argued that the claim the claim was “entirely without merit”.“The respondent felt the arrangement was not working and requested the complainant to return to the office and work as per her terms and conditions of employment,” Mr Hegarty submitted.Upholding the complaint, Adjudication officer Valerie Murtagh found the employer breached Section 22 of the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023, as it had “not complied with the specified notice provisions and requirements” for the revocation of the remote working arrangement.She noted that the worker was “completely ignored” when she asked her employer to set out “clear, objective reasons” for revoking the arrangement, and that “only one day’s notice” was given.Murtagh concluded that €2,540, a sum of four weeks’ pay – the maximum award under the act – was “just and equitable”.“This award reflects the egregious nature of the treatment of the complainant by the respondent and the detrimental adverse impact on the complainant,” she wrote.The complainant said it fell to her to process work permits, when her ex-line manager fell ill, a “quite onerous” job for which she had no training, she added.The worker said the atmosphere at work was “hostile”, and that when she complained about the new tasks at a meeting, the businessman told her: “I made your duties and I will tell you what they are,” the worker said, describing his tone as “intimidatory”.The adjudicator wrote that she was satisfied the complainant was subjected to a “hostile work environment” after the remote work arrangement was revoked, where she was subject to “micromanagement and pressure”.Despite that, the complainant went back to try to work out her notice after resigning, Ms Murtagh added.“I found her to be an honourable, hard working and diligent employee and it is a testament to her character that despite the difficulties she experienced with the company, she persevered and worked hard and processed the work permits as best she could,” Murtagh wrote.“By contrast, I found the testimony of the MD to be dismissive and lacking in candour,” she added.