Rejecting a flexible working request is set to become harder for employers.
At present, an employer can refuse a statutory flexible working request where one or more of the recognised business reasons applies. Under changes introduced by the Employment Rights Act 2025, employers will still be able to rely on those same business reasons, but there will be an extra hurdle.
The employer will also need to show that it was reasonable to refuse the request on that ground.
The change is expected to take effect in 2027.
For small businesses, this does not mean that every flexible working request will have to be approved. It does mean that a simple refusal such as "it would affect the business" or "we need everyone in the office" is going to be much more difficult to defend.
What is the position now?
Employees currently have the statutory right to request flexible working from the first day of employment.
A request could involve, for example:
Employers must deal with statutory requests reasonably and, unless the request is accepted in full, must consult with the employee before making a decision. The whole process, including any appeal, should normally be completed within two months.
An employer can currently reject a request for one or more of eight recognised business reasons:
Those reasons are not disappearing.
What is changing is the amount of explanation employers will need to give.
What will change?
The Employment Rights Act 2025 adds a new requirement.
It will not be enough for an employer simply to identify one of the eight permitted business grounds. The employer must also consider that it is reasonable to refuse the request on that ground.
If the request is rejected, the employer will need to tell the employee which ground it is relying on and explain why the refusal is considered reasonable.
That is an important change in practice.
Consider these two responses.
Response A:
"Your request to work from home three days per week is refused because it would have a detrimental impact on performance."
That identifies a recognised statutory reason, but tells the employee very little about why the employer reached that conclusion.
Compare that with:
Response B:
"We have considered your request to work from home three days per week. Your role involves supervising two junior members of staff who currently require daily face-to-face support. We considered whether the supervision could be provided remotely or divided between other managers, but the other managers do not have sufficient capacity. Based on the current structure of the team, we believe three home-working days would have a detrimental impact on the performance of the team. We therefore consider it reasonable to refuse the request. We would, however, be prepared to consider one regular home-working day or a three-month trial of two days."
The second decision is much easier to understand.
More importantly, it shows that the employer has actually considered the request rather than simply selecting a reason from a list.
Employers should be able to explain the evidence
Small businesses do not need to produce a lengthy legal submission every time they refuse flexible working.
They should, however, be able to explain what the problem is.
For example, if an employer says that allowing an employee to finish at 3pm would affect customer demand, it should be able to explain why.
Perhaps most customer enquiries arrive between 3pm and 5pm.
Perhaps there are only two employees trained to deal with those enquiries.
Perhaps approving the request would regularly leave only one person available.
Those facts give substance to the business reason.
Saying simply "we need you here until 5pm" does not.
ACAS already recommends that rejection letters contain relevant information explaining the decision, including where appropriate the investigation carried out, practical problems with the request, alternatives considered and relevant staffing or cost information.
Consultation will matter
Employers should not decide the answer before speaking to the employee. Keeping an open mind to finding a solution together could be the difference between in employee relations and avoid future grievance’s.
Unless the request is accepted in full, there is already a legal requirement to consult before reaching the final decision.
That discussion should cover the practical effect of the proposed arrangement and whether another arrangement might work. Any consultation should be addressed in a formal manner with an invite, good notes and an outcome as a minimum.
For example, an employee might request permanent home working three days a week.
The employer might have genuine concerns about Mondays because that is when the whole team meets clients.
Rather than rejecting the entire request, the employer could discuss whether the employee could work from home on Tuesday and Thursday instead.
A trial period can also be useful where the employer genuinely does not know whether the arrangement will work. ACAS specifically recommends considering alternatives and trial periods where appropriate. A trial period, if done properly, does not set a precedent or make the obligation to accept the request following the review period but documentation and regular monitoring would be required to justify why it did or didn’t work.
An employer does not have to agree to an unsuitable compromise. But being able to show that alternatives were considered can help explain why the eventual decision was reasonable.
Avoid blanket policies
Employers should be particularly careful with blanket statements such as:
"Managers cannot work part-time."
"We don't allow home working."
"Everyone must work 9 to 5."
Those rules might reflect a genuine operational preference, but they should not replace proper consideration of an individual statutory request.
The employer should look at the employee's actual role, the proposed arrangement and the effect on the business.
The answer might still be no.
The issue is how the employer gets there.
Remember discrimination law
Flexible working should never be considered in isolation from the Equality Act 2010.
For example, requests are commonly made by employees who have childcare responsibilities. A rigid requirement to work particular hours could, depending on the circumstances, create an indirect sex discrimination issue.
A request might also relate to an employee's disability. In that situation, the employer may have a separate legal duty to consider reasonable adjustments.
The reasonable adjustment obligation is separate from the statutory flexible working procedure. An employer cannot simply reject the flexible working request under one of the eight business grounds and assume that deals with its duties under the Equality Act.
This is one area where employers should take advice before refusing a request if there is any suggestion that a disability, age, maternity or another protected characteristic is involved.
What should employers do now?
Although the new reasonableness requirement is expected to take effect in 2027, employers can start applying the same discipline now.
Before rejecting a flexible working request, ask:
If the answer to "why can't we agree this?" is little more than "because that is how we have always done it", the refusal needs more thought.
The practical lesson for employers
Employers will retain the right to say no to flexible working where there is a genuine business reason.
What is changing is the standard expected when explaining that decision.
The safest approach is to treat the statutory reasons as the start of the decision, not the end of it.
Identify the relevant business ground, investigate whether it genuinely applies, discuss the issue with the employee, consider alternatives and record why refusal is reasonable. Exploring alternatives and negotiating might be required with a view to the employee being clear on the grounds for refusal to try and avoid additional administration burden with an appeal. Most appeals arrive from employees not only not agreeing the decision but also how the communication and reasons have been unclear.
That creates a much stronger position if the employee challenges the decision later.
For small employers in particular, the process does not need to be complicated. It simply needs to show that somebody properly considered the request and can explain the business reason for the answer.