Working from Home in Singapore – When can employers say no?

The widespread adoption of working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly changed employee expectations regarding where work should be performed.

For many employees, working from home is now viewed as an established feature of working life rather than a temporary arrangement or additional employee benefit.

However, the regulatory position in Singapore is more nuanced. Employees do not have an automatic right to work from home, and employers generally remain entitled to determine where and how work should be performed. Flexible work arrangements are not an entitlement, and the requirements of the employee’s role and the employer’s business generally take precedence. 

That said, an employer’s discretion is not entirely unrestricted. Since 1 December 2024, the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests (“Tripartite Guidelines”) have required employers to establish a process for employees to make formal flexible work arrangement requests and to consider those requests properly. The practical question is therefore not simply whether an employer can say “no” to working from home, but whether the employer can demonstrate reasonable business grounds for doing so.

Tripartite Guidelines

The Tripartite Guidelines give eligible employees a structured avenue to make formal requests for flexible work arrangements, including working from home. The Tripartite Guidelines distinguish between flexi-place, flexi-time and flexi-load arrangements. Working from home falls within flexi-place arrangements, but an employee may also request staggered hours, compressed working schedules, part-time work or other forms of flexibility.

The Tripartite Guidelines do not require an employer to approve all formal requests. The employer retains the prerogative to decide whether an arrangement is viable from a business perspective. However, the employer should:

• properly consider the request;
• assess it on reasonable business grounds;
• provide a written decision within two months of receiving it;
• provide a reason if the request is rejected; and
• where possible, discuss alternative arrangements with the employee

Accordingly, an employer may push back against a WFH request but should not treat the process as a mere formality. A standard response stating that the organisation “does not support working from home” may carry greater potential regulatory risk than a reasoned decision based on the requirements of the employee’s role and the effect of the proposed arrangement on the business. While the Tripartite Guidelines are not legislation and do not confer an automatic right to work from home, all employers are expected to comply with them. Employees who consider that their formal requests have not been properly considered may approach TAFEP for assistance.

Reasonable grounds for rejection

An employer’s decision should focus on the employee’s role and performance, together with the effect that the requested arrangement may have on the organisation. MOM identifies a significant increase in costs and an adverse impact on the employer’s ability to meet customer needs as examples of reasonable business grounds.The list is not exhaustive, and employers may rely on other reasons specific to their business or sector. 

Depending on the circumstances, reasonable grounds for rejecting or limiting a WFH arrangement may include:

• a material adverse impact on productivity or work quality;
• difficulty meeting customer, client or operational requirements;
• the need for regular face-to-face collaboration or supervision;
• an adverse impact on the employee’s team or disproportionate redistribution of work;
• information security, data protection or confidentiality concerns;
• the employee’s need to access physical files, systems or equipment;
• workplace safety or regulatory requirements; or
• the employee’s demonstrated performance or communication difficulties under a remote-working arrangement.

However, the employer should be able to explain how the identified concern applies to the particular request. For example, a need for collaboration may justify requiring attendance on certain days, but may not necessarily explain why working from home must be prohibited altogether. Similarly, past performance issues may be relevant if the employer can connect those issues to remote working, but a general concern that employees may be less productive at home may be more difficult to substantiate without supporting circumstances.

An employer with genuine operational reasons and a properly documented assessment is generally in a stronger position than an employer that rejects the request automatically or gives a reason unrelated to business requirements. Ultimately, employers are not required to approve every WFH request. However, each request should be properly considered, with any rejection supported by clear and genuine business reasons.