Requesting a schedule change or remote work in PR

Yes you can ask, and the employer is required to answer you

Many people in Puerto Rico assume that asking for a different schedule, fewer hours or working from home is a favor you ask verbally and then wait on. It is not. **Article 8 of Act 379 of 1948**, the working-day statute, creates a procedure with deadlines, and the employer is required to answer.

The text is direct: **an employee may request in writing a change in schedule, in the number of hours, or in the place where the work must be performed**. That «place where the work must be performed» is the legal door to remote work in the private sector, and it was there before the word became fashionable.

The written request must specify four things, and leaving one out hands the employer an easy out: **the change requested, the reason for the request, the effective date and the duration of the change**.

And the clock: **the employer is required to provide an answer within twenty (20) calendar days** from receiving the request. If the employer has **more than fifteen (15) employees**, that answer **must be in writing**. There is one variant: if the employer meets with you within those twenty days, the answer may be notified within **fourteen (14) calendar days following that meeting**.

What the employer may answer (and what it may not do)

Let us be clear so nobody walks away disappointed: **Article 8 does not require the employer to grant the change**. It requires the employer to answer, and it shapes that answer.

In its answer the employer may grant or deny. If it grants, **the grant may be subject to the conditions or requirements the employer deems appropriate**. If it denies, the law asks for two things: that **the denial contain the reasons for the decision** and **any alternative to the request presented**.

That requirement of reasons and an alternative is what makes the procedure useful even when the answer is no. A reasoned written denial tells you exactly which obstacle must be solved, and often the «alternative» the employer proposes is the arrangement you were after: coming in one hour later instead of two, two days from home instead of five.

Keep the answer. If a retaliation problem arises later, that paper is your evidence that a formal request existed and when it was filed.

Who can use Article 8: 30 hours and one year

The article sets its own scope, and that is the part that decides whether your request comes through this door.

• It applies to employees who **regularly work thirty (30) hours or more per week** and who **have worked for the employer for at least one (1) year**. Both conditions, not one.
• **Express exception: informal caregivers duly certified by the Department of the Family.** Upon presenting their certification they may request a schedule change **without the thirty weekly hours and without having completed the year** of employment. That exception came in with Act 82-2023.
• **The six-month rule:** the article's provisions do not apply to another request filed within six (6) months of receiving the employer's written decision **or the granting of the change, whichever is greater**. That is: you ask once and you wait. Worth asking well the first time.

Two groups the law orders treated with priority

That same Article 8 says **the employer shall treat with priority** the requests of two groups. It is not a best-practice recommendation: it is in the statutory text.

The first: **heads of household holding parental authority or sole custody of their minor children**. The second: **informal caregivers duly certified by the Department of the Family**.

If you fall in one of those groups, say so in the request and attach the evidence, the Family Department certification, or the document establishing custody. A request that does not mention the priority the law gives you is a request missing its best argument.

A practical note on the informal-caregiver certification: it is the same document that exempts you from the thirty-hour and one-year requirements. If you care for a relative and have never pursued that certification, that filing with the Department of the Family is what turns a difficult conversation with your supervisor into a right with a deadline.

If you are punished for asking: the presumption favors you

This is the part almost nobody knows and the one that gives Article 8 teeth. It is in **Article 10** of that same Act 379.

No employer may **retaliate, dismiss, suspend or in any way affect the tenure or working conditions** of an employee for having filed a request to modify schedule, number of hours or place of work under Article 8, nor for **refusing to accept an alternate weekly work schedule** of the kind Article 6 authorizes.

An employer engaging in that conduct **may be held civilly liable for an amount equal to the damages** the act caused the employee. And if it is shown the employer acted **with malice or reckless indifference** to your rights, **an additional maximum amount equal to the actual damages may be imposed as punitive damages**. To set those punitive damages the law directs considering, among other factors, the employer's financial situation, how reprehensible the conduct was, its duration and frequency, the amount of damages and the size of the business.

Additionally, the court **may require that the worker be reinstated** and that the employer cease and desist.

And now the detail that changes a case: in the proceeding **the employer carries the burden of rebutting the presumption that retaliation was taken** against the employee for not having accepted a flexible work schedule. The presumption runs in your favor and it is the employer who must knock it down.

The action is filed in the Court of First Instance, and **the Secretary of Labor may bring it on behalf of and representing the affected employee**. These claims may proceed under the ordinary procedure or under the **complaint procedure of Act No. 2 of October 17, 1961**, which is the summary track and moves far faster.

Do not confuse it with the alternate schedule (the 4 x 10 week)

There is another figure in the same statute that looks similar and is not the same, and mixing them up is how a right gets lost. **Article 6(b)** allows establishing an **alternate weekly work schedule by written agreement between employee and employer**, letting the employee complete a workweek of no more than forty (40) hours with **daily schedules not exceeding ten (10) hours per day**. That is the four-day, ten-hour week.

The differences that matter:

• Article 8 is **a request from you** that the employer answers. Article 6(b) is **a written agreement** between the two.
• Under the alternate schedule, **if you work beyond ten hours in a day, those hours are paid at time and a half**. The agreement does not erase overtime: it moves where it starts.
• **The agreement may be revoked by mutual agreement at any time**, and either party may **terminate it unilaterally after one (1) year** from adoption. It does not bind you for life.
• If the business is sold, **the agreement may be continued by the third party acquiring it** without signing a new one.
• And a separate figure: **Article 6(e)** allows the employer to grant an employee's request to **make up hours not worked for the employee's personal reasons**. Those hours are not overtime if worked in the same week as the absence, do not exceed twelve hours in a day nor forty in the week. Mind the wording: it is written as **an employee request**, not as an employer power to order you to make up time.

How to write the request so the clock starts running

The twenty-day period runs from when the employer **received** the request. That is why the date record matters so much: an email to Human Resources copying yourself, or hand delivery with a signed acknowledgment. A text message to your supervisor does not leave the same trail.

A request that complies with the article fits on one page and carries, in this order, the four things the law requires:

• **The change requested**, concretely: «start at 10:00 a.m. and leave at 7:00 p.m.», «three workdays from my residence», «reduction to 32 hours per week». Not «more flexibility».
• **The reason**: caring for a relative certified by the Department of the Family, sole custody of minors, studies, medical treatment, transportation. If one of the article's two priorities applies to you, say it here with the evidence attached.
• **The effective date**: from when you want the change.
• **The duration**: if permanent, say so; if for a semester or six months, say that too. A change with an expiration date is far easier to grant than an open-ended one.
• Close by asking for the answer in writing and mention the twenty-calendar-day term of Article 8 of Act 379. That is not a threat: it makes clear you know the procedure.