Search

How can we help?

Icon

Portugal ‘right to rest’ laws put workplace health and wellbeing first

New ‘right to rest’ laws in Portugal have recently been implemented, with the aim of improving the work-life balance of employees, particularly in light of the expansion of working from home, triggered by the pandemic.

The pandemic has brought the topic of health and wellbeing to the forefront, not least in the employment law sphere. With an overnight move for many from office to homeworking, there was an increased focus on mental resilience, loneliness, and the blurred lines between work and rest, and between work and home life. Across the country, many employees suddenly had the opportunity to experience both the perks of working away from the office, as well as the detriments.

The pandemic has undoubtedly shifted us further away from a time where work was a place, to a time where work is an activity. We are seeing higher percentages of the workforce continuously working from home or remotely than ever before. We are also seeing the emergence of a ‘hybrid’ workforce; fluctuating a mix of home, remote and office working.

Despite this seismic shift towards a new future of work, and even a new future society, there have been no moves by the UK government to institutionalise the changes, nor to modernise the legal infrastructure to ensure ongoing protection of employee rights in light of the changes. In the UK, the experience at the individual employee level is very much left to the forces of supply and demand and the decisions of individual organisations.

Lawmakers in Portugal however have decided to take a different, more proactive, approach. New ‘right to rest’ laws have recently been implemented, with the aim of improving the work-life balance of employees, particularly in light of the expansion of working from home, triggered by the pandemic.

The Portuguese ‘right to rest’ laws apply to all organisations with 10 or more employees and include banning employers from contacting workers outside of office hours. Employers who do could face fines.

In an attempt to tackle wellbeing issues amongst homeworking employees, such as loneliness or isolation, the laws expect employers to organise regular face-to-face contact with their workers, at least every two months.

Additionally, employers will not be permitted to monitor their employees when they work from home, and workers who have children will also be allowed, under the new laws, to work remotely without prior approval, until their child turns eight.

Companies may also have to contribute to any higher household bills employees incur as a result of switching to remote working, such as energy and internet costs. Employers can write off these costs as a business expense.

Portugal’s Minister of Labour and Social Security has said that remote working can be a “game changer if we profit from the advantages and reduce the disadvantages” and that its growth needs to be regulated. Further, the Portuguese government hopes that these enhanced employment protections will attract more remote-working foreigners to the country.

The Portuguese ‘right to rest’ laws apply to all organisations with 10 or more employees and include banning employers from contacting workers outside of office hours. Employers who do could face fines.

Law makers in Portugal have been very proactive and are looking to steer this extensive shift in work norms in a way that will ensure its benefits are maximised for Portuguese society as a whole.

Unlike Portugal, Britain appears to be taking a more reactive approach, relying on market forces to determine the work climate in the UK. Employers who want to attract and retain scarce talent may well need to be open to extensive homeworking, offering to pay for employees’ increased utility bills and ensuring family friendly policies and wellbeing practices are enhanced. Employees who find themselves less in demand may well have to work in a way they would not choose to. With an uneven situation regarding supply and demand, leverage will ultimately drive conditions.

Disclaimer
This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

Author profile

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

Pub
  • 09 July 2026
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

The Arbitration Act 2025 – Factsheet

This factsheet outlines the major reforms and key developments introduced by the Arbitration Act 2025, including updates on summary disposal, jurisdictional challenges, emergency arbitrators, arbitrator disclosure duties, and governing law in arbitration proceedings.

art
  • 09 July 2026
  • Immigration

Right to Work Checks are changing from 1 October 2026: Is your business ready?

The Home Office’s new rules, effective 1 October 2026, will overhaul right to work checks and raise the risk of civil penalties for UK businesses.

art
  • 08 July 2026
  • Privacy and Data Protection

ICO prosecutes employee under the Data Protection Act for forwarding client data to his personal email address

The issue of employees taking confidential business information or personal data when moving to a new employer remains a significant concern for businesses.

Pub
  • 07 July 2026
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

Accelerating arbitration: Expedited procedures and key changes in the new ICC Rules – Episode 2

In episode 2, Jack Hobbs (Clarkslegal) and Christopher Howitt (Three Stone) explore how the latest expedited and highly expedited procedures under the ICC Arbitration Rules 2026 are transforming the landscape of dispute resolution.

art
  • 07 July 2026
  • Employment

6 month unfair dismissal rights: What employers need to know

Under the new Employment Rights Act 2025 the minimum period of service required to qualify to bring a statutory claim for unfair dismissal has been reduced from 2 full years to 6 months from 1 January 2027 onwards.  

art
  • 02 July 2026
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

Litigation and Artificial Intelligence: Where are we now?

In the recent case of Cork and another v Smith, the High Court publicly admonished a law firm and two of its solicitors after they had produced and submitted two AI-generated letters to the court containing misleading and false information in relation to a block transfer application made under Rule 12.37 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016.