header-logo header-logo

02 July 2014
Issue: 7613 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Problems with flexible working

Employers must avoid “dangerous pitfalls” surrounding new employee rights

Employees with more than 26 weeks of work under their belt now have a right to request flexible working.

Previously, the right applied only to employees with children or certain carer responsibilities. 

Employers must deal with the request in a “reasonable manner” but can refuse it if they have a good business reason for doing so. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills offers examples of a “reasonable manner” as assessing the advantages and disadvantages, holding a meeting with the applicant and offering an appeal process. ACAS has produced a code of practice and guidance for employers.

However, Kathryn Dooks, employment partner at Kemp Little, says complications could arise for employers, particularly when receiving competing requests from the same team.

“Employers can take requests in the order they are received so getting a request in early can impact an employee’s chances of success and the options available subsequently for the rest of the team,” she says. 

“If the employer cannot decide between two competing requests, the guidance recommends that the employer can randomly select between the two. These scenarios are likely to cause discrimination complaints and employee relations issues. In addition, under the guidelines, employers are not required to make a value judgement on which is the most deserving request, but if an individual has a protected characteristic (such as a disabled member of staff or a working mother), value judgements are inevitable.

“Avoiding dangerous pitfalls around requests is very important and employers can do so by putting a flexible working policy in place which explains their approach from the outset.”

Meanwhile, employment lawyers have predicted a proposed ban on exclusivity in zero hours contracts may be difficult to enforce.

Luke Blackburn, barrister at 7 Bedford Row, says the contracts could be fair and desirable for some workers if “managed well”.

“But other problems remain with zero-hours contracts: several rights depend on the amount of work actually done. These include holiday pay, and many awards made by employment tribunals.”

 

Issue: 7613 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Commercial and technology team in Cambridge strengthened by partner hire

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Hampshire firm appoints head of new family department

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Firm strengthens securities practice with partner return

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll