Reasons to Reject a Flexible Working Request

Flexible working is now a core feature of UK employment law rather than a discretionary benefit. Since 6 April 2024, all employees have had a statutory right to request flexible working from day one of employment. For HR professionals and business owners, this has increased both the volume of requests and the legal risk attached to refusing them.

While employees have a right to request flexible working, they do not have an automatic right to have flexible working approved. Employers can lawfully reject requests, but only if the decision is handled correctly, based on permitted statutory grounds, and supported by a reasonable process. Poorly handled refusals expose organisations to tribunal claims, discrimination risk, and long-term employee relations issues.

What this article is about
This article explains when and how an employer can lawfully reject a flexible working request under UK employment law. It focuses on the legal framework, the statutory reasons for refusal, evidential requirements, and the risks of getting the decision wrong. The guidance is written for HR professionals and business owners who need to make defensible, compliant decisions in real workplace scenarios.

Section A: The Legal Framework for Rejecting Flexible Working Requests

The legal right to request flexible working is set out in the Employment Rights Act 1996 and expanded by the Flexible Working (Amendment) Regulations 2023. These rules govern who can make a request, how employers must deal with it, and the limited grounds on which a request may be refused.

From a legal perspective, it is critical to distinguish between the right to request and the outcome of that request. UK law does not require employers to agree to flexible working arrangements in all cases. However, it does require employers to follow a fair and reasonable decision-making process and to rely only on prescribed statutory reasons if rejecting a request.

1. Statutory right to request vs no automatic right to approval

Employees are entitled to make a statutory flexible working request, but the legislation does not give an automatic entitlement to work flexibly. The employer’s obligation is to consider the request properly and reach a decision within the statutory framework. Where a request cannot be accommodated, the employer may refuse it, but only where the refusal is based on one or more of the permitted business grounds.

2. Handling requests reasonably

Employers must deal with flexible working requests in a reasonable manner. In practice, this means the employer should approach the request with an open mind, consider the proposal against operational needs, and avoid assumptions or blanket rules about what forms of flexibility are acceptable.

Since 6 April 2024, employers must consult with the employee before refusing a request. Consultation should take place before any final decision is made, not retrospectively. The discussion should be meaningful and proportionate to the request, for example exploring how the arrangement would operate in practice and whether adjustments could address specific concerns.

3. Time limits, number of requests, and key procedural rules

Key elements of the legal framework include:

• Employees may make up to two flexible working requests in any 12-month period, provided the earlier request has been concluded
• Requests no longer need to explain the impact on the employer, but employers must still assess impact
• Employers must consult with the employee before refusing a request
• Decisions must be made within two months unless an extension is agreed
• Rejection must be based on at least one statutory business reason

Failure to follow these procedural requirements can itself give rise to a tribunal claim, even if the employer believes the refusal was justified. Tribunals will not decide whether the employer made the “best” business decision, but they will examine whether the employer relied on a lawful reason and handled the request reasonably.

Section A summary
Employers are not legally obliged to approve flexible working requests, but they are tightly constrained in how they refuse them. A rejection is only lawful if it complies with the statutory framework, follows the correct process, and relies on one or more permitted business grounds. Understanding this framework is the foundation for avoiding legal exposure when flexible working requests cannot be accommodated.

Section B: The Statutory Reasons to Reject a Flexible Working Request

An employer can only lawfully reject a flexible working request if the refusal is based on at least one of the statutory business reasons set out in the Employment Rights Act 1996. These reasons are exhaustive. A rejection based on convenience, preference, or informal workplace norms will not be legally defensible.

Each statutory ground must be applied to the facts of the individual request. Employers should avoid relying on generic or pre-determined responses and must be able to explain how the reason applies in practice to the employee’s proposed working arrangement.

In some cases, an employer may rely on more than one statutory ground. However, employers should avoid “padding” refusals with weak or generic reasons, as this can undermine the credibility of the decision if it is challenged.

1. Burden of additional costs

A request may be rejected if it would result in additional costs that would have a material impact on the business. This could include increased staffing costs, overtime payments, loss of efficiency, or the need for specialist equipment.

The cost must be more than minimal or speculative. Employers should be able to demonstrate how the proposed arrangement would create a genuine financial burden, rather than relying on assumptions or general budget pressures.

2. Detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand

If a flexible working arrangement would prevent the business from meeting customer or client demand, this can justify refusal. This commonly arises where an employee’s role requires consistent availability at specific times or where service delivery would be disrupted by reduced hours or altered working patterns.

Evidence may include service coverage requirements, peak demand periods, or dependency on the employee’s availability during certain hours.

3. Inability to reorganise work among existing staff

Employers can rely on this ground where the work cannot reasonably be redistributed among other employees without overburdening them or undermining operational effectiveness.

This is particularly relevant in small teams or specialist roles where skill sets are not easily interchangeable. However, employers should be able to show that reasonable attempts to reorganise work were considered before rejecting the request.

4. Inability to recruit additional staff

A refusal may be justified where the proposed working pattern would require additional staff and recruitment is not feasible. This could be due to labour market conditions, cost constraints, or the specialist nature of the role.

Tribunals expect employers to demonstrate why recruitment is impractical, rather than simply undesirable.

5. Detrimental impact on quality

Where flexible working would reduce the quality of work, service, or output, this can form a lawful basis for refusal. This may apply where close supervision, collaboration, or continuity is essential to maintaining standards.

The focus should be on measurable quality concerns rather than subjective views about how work “should” be done.

6. Detrimental impact on performance

This ground applies where the proposed arrangement would negatively affect individual or team performance. Employers may consider past performance data, role requirements, and the practical implications of reduced availability or altered working hours.

Care should be taken not to conflate performance concerns with resistance to change, as unsupported assertions are unlikely to withstand scrutiny.

7. Insufficiency of work during the periods the employee proposes to work

If there is insufficient work available during the times the employee wishes to work, the request may be refused. This often arises where work is concentrated at specific times of day or days of the week.

Employers should be able to demonstrate how workload patterns align with business needs.

8. Planned structural changes

A request may be rejected if the employer is planning structural changes that would be incompatible with the proposed working arrangement. This could include restructures, changes to staffing models, or technological changes affecting how work is organised.

The planned change must be genuine and reasonably foreseeable, not speculative or retrospective justification.

Section B summary
The statutory reasons for rejecting a flexible working request are narrow and must be applied carefully. Employers should link the chosen reason directly to the employee’s proposal and support it with evidence. Using the correct ground, and explaining it clearly, is critical to defending a refusal if challenged.

Section C: Evidence, Consultation, and Reasonableness in Rejection Decisions

Rejecting a flexible working request is not simply a matter of identifying a statutory reason and issuing a refusal. UK employment law requires employers to deal with requests in a reasonable manner, which places emphasis on evidence, consultation, and genuine consideration of the employee’s proposal.

A failure in process can result in legal liability even where a statutory ground for refusal technically exists. HR professionals and business owners should therefore focus as much on how the decision is reached as on why it is reached.

1. The importance of evidence-based decision making

Tribunals expect employers to rely on objective evidence rather than assumptions or generalised beliefs about flexible working. This may include workload data, staffing levels, customer demand patterns, financial information, or performance metrics.

While employers are not required to produce complex financial modelling, they should be able to explain their reasoning clearly and demonstrate that the impact of the proposed arrangement was properly assessed. Unsupported assertions are a common weakness in unsuccessful employer defences.

Where a request engages equality law risk, employers should expect a higher level of scrutiny. This is particularly important where the request relates to disability, because the Equality Act 2010 duty to make reasonable adjustments may apply alongside the flexible working regime. In those cases, employers should ensure the evidence and rationale for refusal can withstand closer examination.

2. Consultation before refusal

Since April 2024, employers are required to consult with the employee before rejecting a flexible working request. Consultation does not mean agreement, but it does mean engaging in a meaningful discussion about the request.

Consultation should take place before any final decision is made, and should be proportionate to the complexity of the request. This may involve exploring how the arrangement would work in practice, identifying specific concerns, and considering whether adjustments or compromises could address those concerns.

A refusal issued without prior discussion is likely to be viewed as procedurally unfair.

3. Considering alternatives and adjustments

Reasonableness includes considering whether the request could be accommodated in a modified form. This might involve trial periods, partial flexibility, altered start or finish times, or alternative working patterns that meet both business and employee needs.

Employers are not obliged to create a role that does not work for the business, but they are expected to show that alternatives were considered rather than dismissing the request outright.

Where the request is connected to disability, employers should also consider whether adjustments are required to remove workplace disadvantage. Even if the employee frames the request as “flexible working”, the underlying issue may still engage reasonable adjustment duties, and the employer should address that aspect explicitly.

4. Documenting the decision

Clear documentation is essential. Employers should record the request, the consultation discussions, the evidence considered, the statutory reason relied upon, and the rationale for refusal.

This documentation will be critical if the decision is challenged internally or in an employment tribunal. Poor record-keeping often undermines otherwise defensible refusals.

Section C summary
A lawful reason for refusal is not enough on its own. Employers must demonstrate that the request was handled reasonably, supported by evidence, and subject to meaningful consultation. A well-documented, objective process is the strongest defence against legal challenge.

Section D: Legal Risks of Rejecting a Flexible Working Request

Rejecting a flexible working request carries legal and practical risks if the decision is not handled carefully. While the statutory regime limits the scope of tribunal claims, poor process, weak reasoning, or discriminatory impact can expose employers to significant liability.

Understanding these risks helps HR professionals and business owners frame decisions in a way that is both legally compliant and defensible.

1. Procedural tribunal claims

An employee may bring a claim to an employment tribunal if the employer fails to follow the statutory flexible working process. This includes failing to consult, missing the two-month decision deadline, relying on a non-statutory reason, or handling the request unreasonably.

Compensation for flexible working procedural breaches is capped at eight weeks’ pay. This cap applies to the statutory flexible working claim only. It does not limit compensation for other claims that may arise from the same facts, such as discrimination or unfair dismissal.

Even where compensation is limited, the management time, legal costs, and reputational impact of tribunal proceedings can be significant.

2. Discrimination risks

The most significant risk associated with rejecting flexible working requests arises under equality law. A refusal may amount to indirect discrimination where it disproportionately affects employees with a protected characteristic, such as women with childcare responsibilities or disabled employees seeking changes to manage the impact of an impairment.

In these cases, employers must be able to show that the refusal is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate business aim. Failure to do so can result in uncapped compensation and substantial legal exposure.

Employers should also be alert to the duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. Where the request is connected to disability, the legal analysis is not limited to the statutory flexible working grounds. Employers should address the reasonable adjustments angle explicitly and ensure decisions are supported by clear evidence and consultation.

3. Constructive dismissal exposure

Where a flexible working request is rejected in a manner that fundamentally undermines trust and confidence, an employee may argue constructive dismissal. This risk is heightened where the employer acts dismissively, fails to consult, or appears to pre-determine the outcome.

Although constructive dismissal claims are fact-specific and difficult to prove, they often arise alongside discrimination or procedural claims.

4. Employee relations and retention risks

Beyond legal liability, poorly handled refusals can damage morale, increase turnover, and undermine trust in management. Flexible working is closely linked to employee engagement, and inconsistent or poorly explained decisions can lead to wider workforce dissatisfaction.

Section D summary
The legal risk of rejecting a flexible working request extends beyond the statutory regime. Discrimination claims, constructive dismissal arguments, and employee relations damage often pose greater threats than procedural penalties. Careful handling and clear justification are therefore essential.

FAQs

1. Can an employer reject a flexible working request outright?

An employer can reject a flexible working request, but only after consulting with the employee and only if the refusal is based on one or more of the statutory business reasons. An outright refusal without consultation is unlikely to be lawful.

2. Do employers have to prove financial loss to reject a request?

Employers do not need to prove actual financial loss, but they must be able to demonstrate that the proposed arrangement would create a genuine burden of additional costs or other adverse business impact. Speculative or unsupported assertions are unlikely to be sufficient.

3. Can flexible working be rejected during probation?

Yes. Employees have the right to request flexible working from day one of employment, including during probation. However, the employer may lawfully reject the request if a statutory reason applies and the request is handled reasonably.

4. What happens if the employer gives the wrong reason for refusal?

If the employer relies on a reason that is not one of the statutory grounds, or cannot justify the reason given, the refusal may be unlawful. This can result in a tribunal claim for breach of the flexible working regime and increase discrimination risk.

5. Can an employee appeal a rejected flexible working request?

There is no statutory right of appeal, but many employers offer an appeal as a matter of good practice. An appeal can help correct procedural errors and reduce the risk of legal challenge.

Conclusion

Flexible working requests must be treated as a formal legal process rather than an informal workplace discussion. While employers are not required to approve every request, they are required to follow a structured, reasonable approach and rely strictly on statutory grounds when refusing.

For HR professionals and business owners, the key to lawful rejection lies in evidence-based decision making, meaningful consultation, and clear documentation. A well-handled refusal reduces legal risk, supports workforce trust, and ensures compliance with UK employment law.

Glossary

Useful Links