Return-to-Office (RTO) policies have become a central topic for employers worldwide, including in Serbia, as companies seek to define how work will be organized in the post-pandemic era. While global headlines highlight major U.S. employers such as Amazon, Dell, and Walmart[1] requiring employees to return to the office full-time, the legal framework and practical realities in Serbia raise different questions.
Can employers in Serbia unilaterally mandate a return to the office, or does such a change require employee consent? What are the legal procedures that must be followed to implement this transition in compliance with Serbian labor law? At the same time, are there viable alternatives to full RTO – such as structured hybrid work models – that could balance operational needs with employee expectations?
Understanding these issues is essential not only for ensuring legal compliance but also for maintaining employee satisfaction and competitiveness in today’s tight labor market. The way Serbian companies approach return-to-office policies and hybrid work arrangements will shape their organizational culture, productivity, and ability to attract and retain top talent in the years ahead.
1. Which work models are Labor law-approved?
While there is currently no specific regulation in Serbia that directly addresses RTO policies, the designated place of work remains a crucial aspect of employment relationships, as it is a mandatory element of every employment contract.
This means that each employment contract must clearly state the exact location where the employee will perform their work.
In general, the law presumes that work will take place at the employer’s premises. However, it also provides flexibility by allowing employment arrangements that involve working outside the employer’s offices.
a. Fully remote work and work from home
Specifically, the Labor Law recognizes two legally valid models for work outside the employer’s premises: remote work and work from home.
When employees work outside the employer’s premises – whether remotely or from home – the law requires that certain additional elements be included in their employment contracts. These are in addition to the standard provisions that apply to all employment agreements.
To stay compliant and ensure clarity for both employer and employee, the contract must specifically outline:
- Working hours – the duration of working hours according to work standards;
- Supervision and performance – the method of supervising the work and quality of performance;
- Work equipment – work equipment that the employer is obliged to procure, install, and maintain;
- Use of personal equipment – the use of the employee’s own work equipment and reimbursement of costs associated with its use;
- Other work-related expenses – reimbursement of other work-related expenses and the method for determining them;
- Other rights and obligations – Any additional terms relevant to the specific nature of the remote work arrangement.
The law also includes important protective measures to ensure fairness for employees who work remotely or from home. These provisions are designed to prevent any disadvantage based solely on where the work is performed.
Specifically, the law states that employees working outside the employer’s premises must not receive fewer rights or less favorable working conditions compared to their on-site counterparts. For example, their base salary cannot be lower than that of employees performing the same role at the employer’s premises.
This ensures that remote or home-based employees are treated equally and fairly, reinforcing a balanced and legally compliant approach to flexible work arrangements.
Furthermore, the provisions of the Labor Law concerning:
- Working time schedule,
- Overtime work,
- Redistribution of working hours,
- Night work,
- Rest periods and leave
also apply to employment contracts for employees working outside the employer’s premises.
Finally, it is also stipulated that the volume of work and deadlines for tasks performed under a remote work arrangement must not be set in a way that prevents the employee from exercising their right to daily breaks, daily, weekly, and annual leave in accordance with the law and internal regulations.
Therefore, while the general rule remains that work is performed at the employer’s premises, the law also allows for work outside those premises.
b. Hybrid work
However, what the law does not explicitly regulate is the increasingly popular hybrid work model – a combination of office and remote work. This model is not defined by legislation but is being shaped and implemented by companies through internal policies and procedures.
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the default was clear: employees were expected to work from the office, and remote work was typically offered as an occasional perk. That changed dramatically during the pandemic, when lockdowns and public health measures made working from home the norm rather than the exception.
As the world began to recover – especially throughout 2022 and 2023 – many companies started looking for a more sustainable and balanced solution. Enter the hybrid work model, which blends the flexibility and comfort of remote work with the in-person collaboration, structure, and culture-building that come from time spent at the office.
This shift presents both opportunities and challenges – and it’s precisely why employers are now developing tailored internal policies to define how hybrid work is managed, ensuring clarity, consistency, and legal compliance.
2. The legal route to changing the place of work
Once the employee’s place of work is contractually defined, any change to that location must be formalized through an annex to the employment contract. This change cannot be made unilaterally; both the employer and the employee must agree, and the process must follow the procedure prescribed by law.
One of the most common legal grounds for such an annex is a change in the employee’s place of work with the same employer.
According to Serbian labor law, a change in the employee’s workplace location may be initiated by the employer in the following situations:
- If the nature of the business requires work to be performed outside the employer’s registered seat or organizational units, and
- If the new location is within 50 km of the original workplace, regular transportation is provided, allowing the employee to commute efficiently, and transportation costs are reimbursed – at least in the amount of a public transport ticket.
Outside these specific conditions, the employee’s explicit consent is required to change the place of work.
These criteria are important because, depending on whether these conditions are fulfilled, the legal procedure for changing the place of work will differ. If the employer cannot rely on the above statutory grounds, the change would require the employee’s consent through an annex to the employment agreement.
Otherwise, any unilateral attempt to change the workplace without following proper legal steps may be considered a breach of employment rights and could lead to the employee’s unlawful termination of employment.
3. Adoption of a rulebook that enables a balanced approach
For many employers – depending on the nature of their business and operational needs – the hybrid work model has proven to be the most practical and sustainable approach to organizing employees’ physical presence at work.
In most cases, this means allowing employees to work from the office three days per week and from home two days per week.
This raises several important questions that employers need to address in accordance with Serbian labour law and established practices. For instance, how should travel expense reimbursements be calculated under a hybrid work model? Similarly, what are the employer’s obligations regarding the reimbursement of remote work expenses such as internet and electricity, and how are these calculated if the employee works from home only part of the week? Clarifying these aspects is crucial to ensure compliance, avoid potential disputes, and maintain transparent and efficient payroll and expense procedures.
The general framework for how hybrid work is organized – such as supervision methods, expenses, occupational health and safety measures, and other guidelines – can be outlined in internal policies, such as Employment Rulebook or even a dedicated Hybrid Work Policy.
Clearly specifying the rules for hybrid work and adoption of a rulebook supports:
- Greater transparency in internal records and employee expectations,
- Fairness in applying company policies consistently across teams, and
- Accurate reimbursement for travel and remote work-related expenses.
4. Safe at home? Legal duties for remote workspaces
The most recent amendments to the Law on Occupational Safety and Health have introduced additional obligations for employers whose employees work from home, specifically with the aim of enhancing the protection of these workers.
Although the concept of working from home is recognized in the Labor Law, what is particularly noteworthy is that the Law on Safety and Health at Work defines remote work from home for the first time.
As a general obligation, the law provides that during work from home or remote work, the employer must ensure occupational health and safety in cooperation with the employee. The employer is obliged to determine the conditions for safe and healthy work, the work equipment provided by the employer, to define the work process related to the duties assigned to the employee, and to prescribe preventive measures for safe and healthy work.
The employer may also adopt a written risk assessment act for remote work and working from home, with the participation of the employee.
In practice, the employer’s obligation to ensure a safe and healthy work environment means that the employer must establish rules and preventive measures related to working from home, which employees are required to follow. As a reference point, the employers should follow the Guide for Safe and Healthy Work from Home adopted by the Ministry of Labour and Administration for Safe and Healthy Work.
5. Potential legal risks
When implementing a return-to-office policy or hybrid work model, employers need to be mindful of several potential legal risks.
Firstly, the employers must maintain fair and non-discriminatory practices across their workforce.
If an employee’s physical presence at the workplace is required due to the nature of their role, it’s entirely reasonable – and legally justifiable – for that role to follow a different work model. In such cases, all employees performing that specific role should generally adhere to the same in-office schedule.
However, where an individual position calls for more time on-site – due to specific operational needs – this arrangement must be clearly formalized through an annex to the employee’s contract, tailored to reflect the unique requirements of the role.
For example, if an employee operates machinery that cannot be moved or used remotely, it makes sense to require them to work from the employer’s premises. Meanwhile, an employee in a role based entirely on computer work may reasonably be allowed a more flexible, hybrid schedule. These types of distinctions, when based on job function, are fully acceptable and not considered discriminatory.
Where issues may arise is when employees in the same role are treated differently without objective justification. If two employees operate the same equipment, but only one is allowed to work from home while the other is not – and there is no clear operational reason for the difference – this could be viewed as discriminatory treatment.
Secondly, one of the key legal risks employers should be aware of when implementing changes to work arrangements – such as transitioning to a full on-site model – is the potential for claims of unlawful termination. This risk becomes particularly relevant when an employee is dismissed for refusing to sign an annex to their employment contract that changes their designated place of work.
It’s important to note that an employee’s refusal to sign such an annex is not automatically grounds for termination. The law allows termination only under specific conditions, and employers must consider whether the operational justification and legal basis for the change are strong enough to support such a decision.
Thirdly, another important consideration relates to workplace injuries in a hybrid or remote work model. When employees perform their duties from home or alternate locations, questions may arise regarding what constitutes a “workplace injury” and how such incidents are to be reported, assessed, and managed.
Employers remain responsible for ensuring a safe working environment, which extends to remote work arrangements within certain limits. For example, if an employee is injured while performing their work tasks from home, this could potentially be treated as a workplace injury, depending on the circumstances. In practice, this means that employers should clearly define expectations for remote work safety, communicate policies for setting up hazard-free home workspaces, and establish procedures for promptly reporting any injuries or incidents occurring while working remotely.
Ultimately, all these questions must be addressed in line with Serbian labour law and best practices. By ensuring that all workplace changes are supported by objective business needs, formalized through proper procedures, and communicated transparently, employers can mitigate legal risks while supporting a smooth and compliant return to the office or implementation of a hybrid work model.
