Social lawthe. A true Pandora’s box, the payment of costs linked to teleworking is a source of tension, which the democratization of remote work will reinforce in the absence of collective regulation. Where do these fees start, and more importantly, where do they end?
Because beyond the rules of public order targeting work instruments (computer), the devil is nestled in the details. So for the Internet connection: reimburse the entire unlimited “triple play” subscription used by the whole family? The additional expense linked to teleworking? But how to precisely assess the share of use in the context of employment?
The generality of the national interprofessional agreement (ANI) of November 26, 2020 is emblematic of this general embarrassment: “It is up to the company to cover the expenses incurred by the employee for the needs of his professional activity and in the interest of the company, after prior validation by the employer (…). The choice of the modalities of possible assumption of professional expenses can be, if necessary, a subject of social dialogue ”. What prudence!
However, if there must be a cost war, it is not certain that the employees come out on top. Because rather than having to evolve in this legal swamp under the watchful eye of the Urssaf and the tax authorities, many employers will prefer to give up salaried teleworking.
The only solution to avoid paperwork or endless disputes, a lump sum, per day teleworked each week, in the nails set by Urssaf: ten euros monthly maximum, thirteen in case of branch or group agreement.
And collective rules: a charter, or if possible a company agreement. Indeed, the individual management of yesterday is unthinkable, now involving hundreds of employees very attached – like our judges – to equal treatment. The benefits are also closely examined by front-line employees who do not have access to this popular flexibility, and see it as a double penalty.
Because legality is not everything: legitimacy is important. If, for example, the company makes substantial real estate gains, employees and unions will not look favorably on the stingy management of the costs associated with working at home.
Perhaps the most important and most discussed of these costs is the professional use of an affected room. Case law distinguishes two situations here: if the employee having a job in the company cannot claim it, salespeople and itinerants can obtain it because “The occupation, at the employer’s request, of the employee’s home for professional purposes constitutes an interference in the latter’s private life. The employer must compensate him for this particular constraint, as well as for the costs incurred by the professional occupation of the home ”.
You have 18.37% of this article to read. The rest is for subscribers only.