The Government is pressing ahead with proposals to make the right for employees to request flexible working the default from day one of employment. This week, entrepreneur, James Dyson, blasted the Government plans as “economically illiterate and staggeringly self-defeating”. Are minsters over-reaching on this one, and implementing legislation in what is fundamentally a business matter that employers should be allowed to work out for themselves.

Under current legislation, employees must have worked for an employer for at least 26 weeks before they can submit a flexible working request and can only submit one such request in any 12-month period. Under the proposed legislation, there would be no qualifying period and two submissions would be allowed every 12 months.

Furthermore, employers would be required to consult with their employees, fully exploring all options before rejecting a request and do so within two months instead of the current three. The new law would also remove the requirement for employees to explain to their employer how a flexible working request might work – the onus instead falling upon the employer to come up with the solution.

The proposed legislation comes on the back of a government consultation which gathered 1,611 responses. 1,342 (83%) of the responses were from individuals with just 114 from businesses of various sizes; the remainder coming from consultancies, academics, and campaign groups. Despite this significant imbalance, the Government feels justified to plough ahead with implementing the legislation which could come into effect as early as next October.

Cynics might conclude that this is the action of a weak Government, keen to garner support from the electorate. Indeed, data released last month suggests Britain’s economy lost £127.9bn in 2022 as a result of low employee productivity and absence. The proposed legislation has its supporters however, with many citing improved employee morale and wellbeing, leading to improvements in productivity.

The explosion in flexible working, and in particular, working from home, has crept up on us somewhat, as a side effect of Covid. Had we not experienced the pandemic, it’s unlikely that that such significant changes to our working practices would ever have been on the radar for most of us. We would still be continuing our 9 to 5 lives working from the office. So, such a rapid drive to impose flexibility on employers does appear questionable when so many businesses are still experimenting and trying to work out exactly what the best solution is for them.

The government has at least refrained from making the legislation a ‘right to have’ and it remains only a ‘right to request’. This is still enough however to create huge distractions for businesses who may find themselves overwhelmed with flexible working requests. Even one or two requests could create administrative challenges for many, and that’s before the logistical challenges are addressed, of implementing any successful requests.

Flexibility in work covers a range of options for employees including working hours, changes to the place of work, job sharing, shift work and flexitime. All are aspects that workers can ask to be amended under a flexible working request and they must be given due consideration, even as the law stands now.

If and when the day-one right comes into effect, to avoid having a new recruit start a job and immediately ask to reduce their hours to a three day week, employers will need to be much sharper with recruitment advertising and job descriptions. Ambiguity must be avoided. Recruiters will need to pre-emptively consider why a job cannot be done flexibly and make sure this is communicated at the outset so that potential applicants can de-select themselves if flexibility is something they require.

Equally of course, options for flexibility can be advertised to make a position more attractive and appeal to a wider audience. We sometimes see this already when recruiters include part-time or job-sharing potential in their advertisements.

The new legislation may have the effect of polarising job roles to those that can be done flexibly and those that cannot. With campaigners pushing strongly for a culture of more widely accepted flexible working in the UK however, employers might want to start thinking about what their stance and approach to flexibility will be.

In the meantime, make sure your job descriptions and contracts of employment are carefully worded, clear and unambiguous.

For help and support with implementing flexible working arrangements and with changes to contracts, call us on 01452 331331 or e-mail This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

As Christmas approaches, employers are likely to be asked for time off by some of their employees so they can go and watch their child or grandchild perform in the school play. Like most other requests for time-off, employers are not under any obligation to grant it; but are they really going to deny it?

Employers do have to allow staff to take reasonable time off for emergencies involving dependants. We normally associate dependants with children but it could also mean an elderly or disabled relative for whom the employee was a carer or held responsibility for welfare. Any time taken off in emergency circumstances does not have to be paid.

A Nativity or seasonal play isn’t an emergency so doesn’t fall under these rules. However it may seem harsh and uncaring not to allow the time off; particularly when, by virtue of the fact that it is a Nativity play, it would be held during the season of goodwill.

Options for how the time-off is treated will likely be either as holiday, unpaid leave or granted as discretionary paid leave. Whichever policy is chosen, we strongly recommend that employers apply it consistently across the workforce. This will help prevent claims of favouritism or potentially discrimination.

Unlike emergencies, events such as school plays and sports days are known about in advance and so can be planned for. With this in mind, an employer may decide that staff must take holiday time for such events; or perhaps a half-day if the employer allow it.

As school plays probably result in just a few hours absence it might be unreasonable to break holiday down to hours to accommodate them and so discretionary paid leave might be an easier solution; as well the employer showing themselves in a good light. Alternatively, the employee could be asked to make the hours back at another time.

Depending upon the profile of the workforce, a business might have just one or two employees that request time off for school play duties. As the impact on the business is likely to be negligible, the absence may be simply overlooked. However, it may disgruntle other employees if this time off is paid and no equivalent time off is offered.

Also, as employees’ children are likely to be of differing ages, decisions need to be consistent from year to year so that a group of parents isn’t disadvantaged because of a sudden rule change.

For some businesses, particularly retail and leisure, the festive season is the busiest time of year and can often be a period where no leave is allowed at all for anybody. Again, so long as this is consistent then parents were probably aware when they took the job.

With more employees working from home, the temptation for them might be to simply slip away for an hour or two and hope their absence isn’t noticed. We suggest that employers remind staff that even if they are working from home they should be formally requesting time off for any absence. Even if it is ultimately granted as discretionary leave, it not for the employee to simply assume that it is acceptable; otherwise the line will become irrevocably blurred.

Ultimately, consistency is key. So to re-iterate, whichever policy is opted for when it comes to ad-hoc or discretionary leave, is should be kept consistent across the workforce to maintain morale and harmony. Employers mustn’t be drawn into favouring any particular reason for requesting leave.

Your leave policy should be made available to your staff in the staff handbook. If that’s something you would like some help or support with this then just call us on 01452 331331 or email us at at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Holding on to the talent that you have is as much a challenge as recruiting new team members. Cathy O'Donoghue examines some strategies that might help you plug any talent leaks.

Whether you use a recruitment agency or prefer to keep talent acquisition in-house, Chloe Errington-Spurr takes you through a wealth of information to help manage your recruitment better.

Employee benefits are increasingly important to employees and are key for both attraction and retention of team members. Our guest speaker Sebastian Merritt of Brunsdon Financial walks us through the various option available to employers and some of the advantages.

Your employer brand is what your potential new recruits see when sizing up your business as a place to work. Your culture and what you stand for all go towards building the picture. Here, Cathy O'Donoghue explains what an attractive employer brand looks like and why this is critical in today's jobs market. 

Kieran O'Donoghue looks at the factors that dictate why we need to change our approach towards recruitment

Owen Lee discusses where discrimination can occur during the recruitment process and examines unconscious bias and what you can do to avoid it.

Here's the full slide deck from our recent "Attract, Recruit, Retain" seminar that you can play straight from this page. Watch the other presentation videos and download slides for each.

Whether you use a recruitment agency or prefer to keep talent acquisition in-house, Chloe Errington-Spurr takes you through a wealth of information to help manage your recruitment better.