the Acas Code of Practice on requests for flexible
\nworking<\/a>.<\/p>\nFrom 2027 employers refusing a request will also be required to
\nexplain to the employee which of the current 8 statutory business
\nreasons applies\u00a0and\u00a0why the refusal of the
\nrequest is reasonable.<\/p>\n
Currently, employees can only challenge a flexible working
\ndecision if they consider that it has not been handled reasonably.
\nUnder the new rules, employees will also be able to bring a claim
\nin the Employment Tribunal if they consider their employer has
\nunreasonably rejected their request. The Tribunal will be able to
\nrequire the employer to reconsider their decision and may award
\ncompensation of up to 8 weeks’ pay (with the statutory cap on
\nweekly pay applied). This is in line with the current maximum award
\nfor failing to handle a flexible working request reasonably.<\/p>\n
Acas will consult separately on changing its Code of Practice on
\nflexible working requests to include new guidance for employers on
\nthis new reasonableness test.<\/p>\n
Suggested process when employer is considering rejecting a
\nflexible working request<\/p>\n
The Government is proposing a new consultation process which
\nemployers must follow if they are considering refusing a statutory
\nflexible working request. It aims to encourage the exploration of
\nviable solutions and trials of flexible arrangements.<\/p>\n
The suggested process is as follows:<\/p>\n
1. Arrange a consultation meeting<\/p>\n
a. Meet with the employee to
\nconsider ways to address challenges with the requested arrangement
\nand explore whether a suitable alternative arrangement could be
\nagreed.<\/p>\n
b. This meeting must be held without
\nunreasonable delay and within the two-month period for making a
\ndecision (we may see a required timeframe being set for holding
\nthis meeting following the Government consultation).<\/p>\n
c. The employee must be informed
\nabout the context of the meeting in advance to allow them to
\nprepare for it (requirements for the amount of notice need for this
\nmeeting may be set once the process is finalised).<\/p>\n
d. A person with the authority to
\nmake a decision about flexible working arrangements (the
\ndecision-maker) must attend the meeting. This could be the
\nemployee’s line manager.<\/p>\n
e. The decision maker will be
\nrequired to keep a record of the discussion during the meeting.<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0During the meeting<\/p>\n
a.\u00a0The meeting must allow for
\nsufficient discussion of the request and any potential
\nalternatives.<\/p>\n
b.\u00a0The decision-maker must
\nclarify whether the employee would like the proposed request to be
\nconsidered as a reasonable adjustment in accordance with the
\nEquality Act 2010.<\/p>\n
c.\u00a0The decision-maker must
\nclearly communicate any challenges they identify with the original
\nrequest. They must explain why they feel that it would not be
\nfeasible to accommodate the request, or why the request is not
\nreasonable, referring to the relevant business reason(s).<\/p>\n
d.\u00a0The decision-maker must
\nconsider whether there might be ways to navigate these challenges
\nand accommodate the request.<\/p>\n
e.\u00a0If the potential impacts of
\na new arrangement are unclear, an employer and employee could
\nchoose to trial it for a fixed period of time.<\/p>\n
3. Exploring alternatives<\/p>\n
a.\u00a0If the original request
\ncannot be feasibly accommodated, the employer and employee must
\nconsider whether there are feasible alternative arrangement(s).<\/p>\n
b.\u00a0Employers can only reject
\nproposed alternative arrangements where one of the 8 statutory
\nbusiness reasons applies.<\/p>\n
c.\u00a0Employers must record the
\noutcome of this discussion and communicate this with the
\nemployee.<\/p>\n
4. Written outcomes: employers must provide written notification
\nof both:<\/p>\n
a.\u00a0The outcome of the meeting:
\na summary of what was discussed and any conclusions or next steps
\nagreed during the meeting between the employer and employee about
\nthe flexible working request (for example, whether alternative
\narrangements were explored, or if a trial period was agreed);
\nand<\/p>\n
b.\u00a0The outcome of the request:
\nthe final decision made by the employer about the flexible working
\nrequest (for example, whether the request was approved, rejected,
\nor if an alternative arrangement was formally agreed).<\/p>\n
How could these changes impact on employers?<\/p>\n
Although these new proposals do not create a right to flexible
\nworking arrangements, they may well nudge employers to be more open
\nto flexible working requests and to explore creative alternative
\nsolutions.<\/p>\n
However, the process of dealing with flexible working requests
\nis likely to be more burdensome for employers.<\/p>\n
In particular, a requirement to provide an explanation of why it
\nis not reasonable to accept both the original
\nrequest\u00a0and\u00a0 any alternative arrangements put
\nforward by the employee as part of the consultation could add
\nsignificantly to the time and resource needed to consider and
\nrespond to the request, and may lead to requests for multiple trial
\nperiods for different alternative arrangements.<\/p>\n
Employers will need to ensure that they have clear, workable
\nprocesses in place to deal with requests in a timely way in order
\nto meet these additional requirements within the two-month
\ntimeframe for making the decision (unless a longer period can be
\nagreed with the employee).<\/p>\n
No doubt there will be concern from both employers and employees
\nabout how already stretched employment tribunals will deal with
\nclaims about the reasonableness of decisions on flexible working
\nrequests within a timeframe which has a meaningful impact on
\nworking lives and practices.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
\nguide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
\nabout your specific circumstances.<\/p>\n
[View Source] <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
Article Insights…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":276671,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[59,57,58,50,56,54,55],"class_list":{"0":"post-448523","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-united-kingdom","8":"tag-gb","9":"tag-great-britain","10":"tag-greatbritain","11":"tag-news","12":"tag-uk","13":"tag-united-kingdom","14":"tag-unitedkingdom"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/448523","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=448523"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/448523\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/276671"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=448523"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=448523"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=448523"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}