Flexible and hybrid working templates toolkit

• From 6 April 2024, employees will be able to request flexible working from their first day in a new job.

• If an employee is dismissed for requesting flexible working, no qualifying time of employment is necessary to file a claim for wrongful dismissal.

• Full-time and part-time employees have the same ability to seek flexible working hours.

• If an employee's request for flexible working is denied, he or she must file any claims with an employment tribunal within three months after the relevant date.

• Organisations that are a 'good fit' for hybrid working can see benefits in the wellbeing, engagement, and motivation of their employees, as well as in productivity. 

• Guidance from Acas and the CIPD on hybrid working helps employers to transition into this way of working, and highlights the important considerations to make.

Navigating Flexible and hybrid working processes correctly is crucial to help you avoid any problems (which can be costly in terms of time, money and reputation).

Recent UK case law has highlighted key aspects of good Flexible and hybrid working management. Knowing how courts have handled claims can help you assess whether your proposed actions are likely to be seen as reasonable.

Here are some notable rulings and their implications:

Flexible Working

• Wilson v Financial Conduct Authority (2024)

  Facts: Miss Wilson, a Senior Manager at the FCA, requested to work entirely remotely. The FCA, citing potential detrimental impacts on performance and team dynamics, rejected her request.

  Outcome: The Employment Tribunal found the FCA had breached the statutory decision period, awarding Miss Wilson one week's pay as compensation. The Tribunal upheld the FCA's decision based on the validity of their concerns.

  Key Takeaway: This underscores the importance of employers providing detailed, fact-based reasons for flexible working decisions.

• Hedger v British Deaf Association (2019)

  Facts: Ms. Hedger, who worked for the BDA, was denied a flexible working request to reduce her hours to accommodate childcare.

  Outcome: The Tribunal found the refusal lacked adequate justification and awarded Ms. Hedger £36,000 for indirect sex discrimination.

  Key Takeaway: This case highlighted the need for employers to carefully consider the impact of flexible working refusals, especially regarding employees with caregiving responsibilities.

• Thompson v Scancrown Ltd (2021)

  Facts: Mrs. Thompson requested to adjust her working hours to pick up her child from nursery. Her employer refused, leading her to resign and file for indirect sex discrimination.

  Outcome: The Tribunal ruled in her favour, awarding her £184,961.32.

  Key Takeaway: The decision emphasised that inflexible working hours can disproportionately disadvantage women with childcare responsibilities, requiring employers to justify such practices thoroughly.

Hybrid Working

• Harvey v City of Oxford Bus Services Ltd (2020)

  Facts: Mr. Harvey, an employee who observed the Sabbath, faced a conflict with his employer's requirement to work on weekends as part of a hybrid working policy.

  Outcome: The tribunal held that the employer’s policy indirectly discriminated against Mr. Harvey due to his religious beliefs.

  Key Takeaway: Hybrid working policies must be flexible enough to accommodate religious practices, and employers should justify the need for specific working days if it impacts employees’ religious observances.

Here are some conplex but common Flexible and hybrid working-related workplace scenarios that need careful planning and execution to resolve.

We show you the steps to take to manage the specific case, along with what you should consider doing to minimise and mitigate any repeat.

🔒 To access the answers to the following questions you will need to make a purchase.