Geographical mobility and work-life balance

Abstract

Geographical mobility decisions, when taken unilaterally by the employer, represent a distortion—whether temporary or permanent—of the always delicate balance between the worker’s family and professional spheres. If such a distortion entails a change of residence, certain compensatory and work-life balance rights are triggered, so that the affected individual may, on the one hand, avoid suffering economic harm resulting from a measure adopted for the proper functioning of the company and, on the other, benefit from mechanisms aimed at preserving and maintaining family ties. If the mobility decision appears to be permanent, or is expected to exceed twelve months within a three-year period, the employee will have the option to terminate their contract with entitlement to the compensation established for objective dismissal. But what happens if there is no change of residence and, nevertheless, the work-family balance is compromised? What happens if the displacement is of short duration but occurs under conditions of distance from home and within a family context that makes the worker’s presence at home essential? In matters of geographical mobility, has the legislator taken into account the constitutional interests at stake—namely, the protection of the family, the right to rest, and the employer’s duty of care? This study examines the work-life balance rights of employees as provided for in article 40 of the Workers’ Statute, both in cases of transfer and temporary assignment, and seeks to propose lege ferenda solutions to the problems identified.