Skip to main content

News story

July 31, 2024

Flexible working legislation updates

Key highlights and best practices employers need to know.

Flexible working arrangements vector image

From April 6, 2024, employees gained a Day 1 right to request flexible working arrangements, prompting significant updates to the process. Many employers are either unaware of these changes or have been slow to adapt their policies accordingly. This article outlines the critical considerations for employers to ensure compliance with the new legislation and avoid potential legal pitfalls.

Understanding flexible working

Flexible working refers to any working arrangement that aligns with the needs of both the employee and employer regarding when, where, and how an employee works.

Types of flexible working requests

Only an employee can make a statutory flexible working request. An eligible employee may request a change to their employment terms if the change relates to:

  • their working hours;
  • their work schedule; and
  • their work location (e.g., home versus office).

How to make a flexible working request

An employee’s request:

  • must be in writing and dated;
  • state that it is a request made under the statutory procedure;
  • specify the desired change and its effective date; and
  • indicate any previous requests made to the employer and when they were made.

The new Acas Code of Practice, which came into effect on 6 April 2024, provides clear guidelines for handling flexible working requests, including submission, employer obligations, and decision communication.

Key points from the Acas Code for employers

  1. Frequency of requests: Employees can submit two requests in a 12-month period.
  2. Consultation requirement: Employers must consult with employees before rejecting a request.
  3. Decision timeline: Requests must be addressed within two months, including any appeals.
  4. Policy and process: Employers should have a clear, communicated policy for handling requests.
  5. Reasonable consideration: Employers must consider requests in a reasonable manner, assessing the impact on both parties.
  6. Grounds for refusal: There are eight statutory reasons for rejecting a request, which must be adhered to.
  7. Appeal process: While not mandatory, having an appeal process is considered best practice.

Employers must comply with the Acas Code to avoid legal issues. Tribunals will consider the Code when resolving disputes, and non-compliance can count against employers. Furthermore, employers must be cautious of discrimination claims, ensuring that requests from all employees, regardless of gender or any other protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, are considered equally.

Action steps for employers

  1. Revise your flexible working policies to align with the new Acas Code.
  2. Educate managers and decision-makers on the updated process and legal requirements.
  3. Stay ahead of legislative changes to minimise risks and foster a supportive work environment.


For assistance with policy updates and compliance, reach out to our team.

Note: This article is not legal advice; it provides information of general interest about current legal issues.

Stay in touch

Subscribe to our newsletter

Stay in touch

By completing your details and submitting this form you confirm you are happy for us to send you marketing communications and that you agree to our Website Privacy Policy and Legal Notice and to us using Mailchimp to process your data.


Sending

News/Insight

  • Converting commercial property into homes: what the latest planning changes mean
    Converting offices and other commercial buildings into homes can create opportunities, but planning rules are only part of the picture. We explain the latest changes and the legal issues property owners, developers and buyers should consider before p


    Read more
  • Closing the AI skills gap
    Learn how SMEs can close the AI skills gap through practical staff training, checking AI outputs, protecting sensitive data and setting clear policies.


    Read more
  • What’s in a letter: Why one small change can spell big trouble for your brand
    Can changing one letter really protect your business name? Peter Moody examines recent trade mark disputes involving FLOWERBX and Vogue, and what businesses can learn about protecting their brands.


    Read more
  • Service charge disputes in mixed-use properties: who is responsible for what?
    Service charges in mixed-use properties can lead to disagreements between landlords, residential leaseholders and commercial tenants. We explore their legal rights, a recent Court of Appeal decision and how disputes can be resolved.


    Read more
  • The do’s and don’ts of using AI in your business
    AI can help businesses improve efficiency and make informed decisions, but it also comes with risks. Explore the key do’s and don’ts of using AI responsibly, including data protection, legal considerations and the importance of human oversight.


    Read more

What they say...

  • Rahul Khanna, October 2026
    Thank you – excellent service “Thank you so much to Qaiser, Vinay and Alex, who were extremely helpful throughout a long-running and complex matter. I really appreciated their clear advice and support.”

  • Client, October 2026
    Feedback “I engaged Karen Cole at RIAA Barker Gillette to support me through a grievance process and help me navigate discussions with my employer. From the outset, Karen provided clear, pragmatic advice and took the time to explain my options,

  • Bryan E, September 2026
    Absolutely outstanding “This firm is super professional, efficient and friendly at the same time. You could not wish for a better service. I have used them for my Will and a range of other matters over many years. I’ve found all the vario

  • Jan Norris, September 2026
    Excellent Service “Charlotte Barbaroussis has prepared our wills, LPAs and a discretionary trust. She was professional, kind and patient throughout. A very fine person to have looking after us.”

  • Brian Nunan, August 2026
    “I dealt with the group for many years, and no matter which solicitor I used, the results were always the same. Excellent!”

Read more
Send this to a friend