Flexible working: the new rules

Stephen Morrall and Sophia Smout analyse the government’s proposed changes

Credit: Meeko Media/iStockphoto/Getty Images

Since 2014, employees have had the right to apply to their employer to change the contractual terms of their employment relating to their hours, times and place of work.

In December 2022, the government unveiled its plans for implementing the proposals in its consultation, ‘Making flexible working the default’. This involves the introduction of the Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Bill, the publication of new guidance and a promise of further consultation.

The proposed changes are:

  1. Making the right to request flexible working a ‘day one’ right, rather than only being permitted after 26 weeks of work.

  1. Prohibiting employers from rejecting an application without having discussed the flexible working requests and explored other options with employees.

  1. Enabling employees to make two flexible working requests in any 12-month period, rather than just one.

  1. Shortening the period for employers to respond to flexible working requests from three to two months.

  1. Removing the requirement for the applicant to explain the potential impact on their employer and suggest ways these effects could be mitigated.

  1. Raising awareness that the current law does not prohibit an employee applying for the right to work flexibly for a temporary period only. In due course, the government also plans a further call for evidence on how ‘informal flexibility’ (where ad hoc flexible working is permitted without formally changing the employment contract) works in practice.

Ninety-one per cent of respondents to the government’s consultation, including many large employers, responded favourably to the ‘day one’ right proposal. However, some business figures, including James Dyson and Gail’s Bakery chairman Luke Johnson, have criticised the apparent foregone conclusion that flexible working should be the default, saying it will reduce productivity and deter investment.

Kevin Hollinrake, the small business minister, told parliament that the proposed day-one right would “encourage early conversations” between employers and employees. A number of mostly SME businesses objected that such early conversations could instead cause early friction between parties if the employer denied a request or was forced to reopen contract negotiations immediately after someone had started work.

The government’s response has been to put the onus on employers, advising them to consider flexible working “in the job design, recruitment and appointment phases”, rather than during the employee’s first days – but it is not proposing to introduce a rule about this. Also, the rules do not apply to job applicants, so an employer is not required to consider an applicant’s request for flexible working, but will be faced with a problem if it receives one on the first day.

In line with CBI recommendations, the proposals aim to enable those with care responsibilities or disabilities to return to work or change jobs more easily; abolishing the current 26-week qualifying period facilitates this. In addition, allowing an employee to make two flexible working requests in any rolling period of 12 months will also benefit employees whose personal circumstances have changed. 

The decision to scrap the requirement for the employee to make a business case for the change is also sensible and acknowledges concerns raised by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, that certain employees – such as those who are junior or have learning difficulties – would be at a disadvantage if required to do this compared with those who are more senior or skilled.

It is important to remember that employees have a ‘right to request’ and not a ‘right to have’ flexible working, and employers are still able to reject a request on one of the eight existing business-related grounds. Sixty-three per cent of employer respondents felt that this was the correct approach, while others felt that the reasons should be extended to allow greater protection in the event that individual and business needs clash.

Dyson’s concerns centre largely on the loss of collaboration and sheer inefficiency the remote working during lockdown caused for his company. His criticism of the proposals was echoed in August 2022 by JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon, who commented that remote working in particular “slows down honesty and decision making”. Furthermore, there have apparently been few considerations of the impact that flexible, and in particular remote, working has on transport and catering providers, who rely on commuter footfall to boost their revenue.

Flexible working should be regarded as a good thing, but there seem to be two problems in the mix. One is the need for the government to frame employment law to promote efficiency in the workforce, reduce barriers to entering work or changing jobs, and encourage employers to allow people with a genuine need, such as working parents, carers, the disabled and other disadvantaged groups, to work flexibly without imposing additional onerous administrative burdens. The other is what Dyson called the “superficial attractions for individuals in the short term” of working from home and the potential damage that having a dispersed workforce can have on a business.

It remains to be seen how businesses will embrace the changes in the flexible working rules and how the government will balance their needs with those of individuals.

Stephen Morrall is a partner and Sophia Smout a trainee solicitor at Hunters Law