header-logo header-logo

04 January 2007
Issue: 7254 / Categories: Legal News , Employment
printer mail-detail

Employers predict problems with flexible working

New regulations giving extended legal rights to working parents will be problematic when introduced in April, employers questioned in a recent survey say.

The Work and Families Act 2006 extends maternity and adoption pay from six to nine months and extends the right to request flexible working to carers of adults. It also allows the government to extend paternity leave rights and maternity pay to 12 months.

Only around one in 10 of the employers questioned by CIPD/KPMG believe the Act’s provisions will benefit their organisations, with smaller employers more likely than larger employers to cite difficulties. Almost two-thirds (64%) think the paternity leave provisions will cause some (48%) or significant (16%) difficulties while 57% think the maternity and adoption pay provisions will cause problems.

Only 4% of employers think the new right for carers to request flexible working will cause significant difficulties, although 36% expect this to cause some difficulty. However, 35% strongly favour extending the right to all employees. 51% consider themselves prepared to implement the Act’s provisions. Just 7% consider themselves poorly prepared.

Bird & Bird consultant Jeremy Nixon says: “Although smaller employers are more likely to see potential problems, even within larger organisations people tend to work in small teams and if members of these teams are given extra rights to take time off work this can create difficulties.

“We also see issues with the administration of the scheme whereby mothers and fathers can transfer leave between them.
Employers are likely to regard this as further red tape which they will need to manage in the increasingly competitive and globalised economy.” 

Issue: 7254 / Categories: Legal News , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll