Home

Flexible working consultation – Acas response

This is the Acas Executive response to the improving access to flexible working consultation.

Opening Statement

1. Acas welcomes the opportunity to respond to this consultation on flexible working. We believe it is essential that new proposals align closely with the principles and expectations set out in the Acas Code of Practice on Requests for Flexible Working. Throughout this response, where relevant we highlight points of alignment between the government's suggested reforms and the existing Acas Code.

2. The Code (and this response) uses Acas's operational expertise. In 2024 to 2025, for example, we handled:

  • 11,371 calls about flexible working to our helpline
  • 655 early conciliation notifications and 251 employment tribunal claims with the flexible working jurisdiction

3. Our data suggests that flexible working requests are not a major driver of disputes. Flexible working related calls represented around only 2% of our helpline calls and 0.7% to 0.8% of our early conciliation or employment tribunal notifications in 2024 to 2025. Flexible working is not among Acas's 10 most common early conciliation or employment tribunal topics. Therefore, Acas welcomes the reforms as a natural next step and welcomes the Department of Business and Trade's changes to build on the advantages of the existing flexible working rules for both employers and employees.

4. There is, however, cause to pause and make sure next steps build on the success of the flexible working regime for employers and employees. While at present, flexible working is not a leading cause of disputes and absolute numbers of cases are low, they are a rising proportion of overall cases. From 2020 to 2026, flexible working cases have gone up from 0.23% to 0.8% for early conciliation, and 0.31% to 0.7% for employment tribunals.

5. At present, the flexible working jurisdiction does not feature among Acas's 10 most common early conciliation or tribunal areas. Flexible working early conciliation and employment tribunal cases are a low, but rising proportion of overall cases. From 2020 to 2026, flexible working cases have gone up from 0.23% to 0.8% for early conciliation, and 0.31% to 0.7% for employment tribunals.

6. Forthcoming changes under the Employment Rights Act will widen the scope for challenge:

  • firstly, setting mandatory consultation steps in legislation may make it easier for employees to evidence a breach of process when bringing an employment tribunal (ET) claim
  • secondly, by requiring employers to demonstrate that any refusal is reasonable, in contrast to current claims which only focus on whether the statutory process was handled correctly

This broader test may increase the likelihood that employees raise complaints about both the reasonableness of refusals and any alleged failure to meet the mandatory consultation requirements.

7. Alignment with the Code is also important because it provides a well‑understood and evidenced framework that already commands broad support. In 2023, 1 in 5 employers cited it as a source of information on flexible working, rising to nearly half in large organisations (read Findings from the Management and Wellbeing Practices Survey from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research).

Evidence from Acas's 2023 consultation on the Code also highlighted broad support for refreshed good practice principles, recognising the Code's value in shaping employer behaviour and supporting problem-solving approaches to flexibility. In practice, the Code acts as a foundation for helping employers to reduce avoidable escalation by building confidence in decision making, and embedding consistent, fair processes.

Response to consultation questions

Part 2 of consultation: a new process for consulting employees on flexible working requests

This section outlines the government's proposed steps an employer must take to consult employees on flexible working requests, including a requirement to hold a meeting within a reasonable amount of time and to confirm the meeting outcome and decision in writing.

Question 17. Do you feel the proposed objective is appropriate for the consultation meeting?

The objective of this meeting is:

To consider ways to address challenges with the requested arrangement and explore whether a suitable alternative arrangement could be agreed.

  1. Yes
  2. No
  3. Do not know

Whether the proposed objective is appropriate

8. Yes, we consider the government's proposed objective to be appropriate, but we recommend the government add words to the effect of 'with a view to reaching agreement' at the end of the objective.

9. The proposed objective should build on the advantages of the existing flexible working rules by encouraging better conversations between managers and employees. This helps prevent unnecessary disputes, while making it easier for some groups of employees to access flexible working who find it difficult to do so now.

10. At present, the flexible working jurisdiction is not among Acas's 10 most common early conciliation or tribunal areas, despite around 8 in 10 employees reporting a flexible working option being available to them (read Survey of Employees and Self-Employed Workers, 2024 to 2025)

This suggests there is good potential for reaching agreement without dispute.

11. DBT's options assessment rightly notes the low numbers of flexible working employment tribunal claims: on average 126 per year from 2017 to 2025. Acas data indicates that flexible working early conciliation and employment tribunal cases have risen as a proportion of overall cases but remain low. From 2020 to 2026, flexible working cases have gone up from 0.23% to 0.8% for early conciliation, and 0.31% to 0.7% for employment tribunals.

12. Forthcoming changes to flexible working under the Employment Rights Act will widen the scope for challenge:

  1. firstly, setting mandatory consultation steps in legislation may make it easier for employees to evidence a breach of process when bringing an employment tribunal (ET) claim
  2. secondly, by requiring employers to demonstrate that any refusal is reasonable, whereas current claims only focus on whether the statutory process was handled correctly

This broader test may increase the likelihood that employees raise complaints about both the reasonableness of refusals and any alleged failure to meet the mandatory consultation requirements.

13. So that the changes to flexible working do not create unnecessary disputes, Acas makes a series of recommendations for changes to the proposed options throughout this response. In the case of the meeting objective, adding words to the effect of 'with a view to reaching agreement' at the end would support employers and employees bringing a problem-solving attitude to the meeting. Moreover, it emphasises that an employer must not unreasonably reject a request.

14. This would also build on the approach already set out in the Acas Code of Practice on requests for flexible working. The Code places strong emphasis on the importance of employers engaging meaningfully with employees before reaching a decision, particularly where a request may be refused. In particular:

  1. carefully assessing the effect of the requested change for both the employer and the employee
  2. reviewing the potential benefits or other impacts of the request, and the practicalities of putting it into effect
  3. whether modifications or alternatives can secure some of the benefits of the original request if it cannot be agreed in full

15. The proposed objective reflects these principles by focusing the meeting on constructive discussion, clarification of concerns, and exploration of feasible alternatives.

16. The current version of the Code, introduced in 2024, set out major updates to the handling of statutory requests including:

  1. the expectation of meaningful consultation before rejection
  2. the need for a meeting held by someone with appropriate authority
  3. clear communication of decisions

17. Respondents to our consultation supported these changes, and the proposal for a compulsory meeting with a clear objective would further strengthen these outcomes. Our analysis of responses to Acas's 2023 consultation on the preliminary version of the 2024 Code found:

  1. widespread stakeholder support of 91% of respondents for clearer expectations around consultation
  2. for example, calls for explicit guidance on the purpose of the meeting, who should attend, timing, records and next steps
  3. feedback that structured discussion improves decision quality, transparency and confidence (particularly within organisations without dedicated HR support)

Whether the meeting should be compulsory

18. We agree with the government's proposal that the meeting should be compulsory.

19. We also recommend that a meeting between the employer and the employee is always advisable even when accepting a request, to support effective workplace communication.

20. A meeting can help clarify the nature of the request, the operational implications, and whether adjustments or alternative options might be feasible. It also gives employees a structured opportunity to explain their circumstances and respond to any concerns raised by the employer.

21. The quality of this consultation is critical: the meeting should enable a genuine exploration of options, rather than becoming a procedural formality.

22. Making this an explicit obligation may support more consistent practice among employers who are less familiar with good practice, without significantly altering the approach of those who already follow a considered and transparent process.

23. Implementation may present challenges in some settings. For example, in small businesses, in shift-based environments, or where decision-makers are geographically dispersed or remote. These challenges could be mitigated through flexibility in how meetings are conducted, including the use of video or telephone discussions, and through clear guidance on practical arrangements.

24. Such arrangements were common in Acas's 2024 case study research on 5 large service-sector organisations. This research, published in November 2024, partnered with Dr Jane Parry at the University of Southampton to explore how organisations manage both statutory and non-statutory flexible working requests, drawing on 35 in-depth interviews across organisations employing more than 95,000 people in total (read Organisational case studies on flexible working: variations in practice). The study explores how line managers handle requests, the factors influencing their decisions, and the implications for fair and consistent access to flexible working.

25. The proposed requirement also supports consistency. Embedding this expectation in legislation would help to promote a more consistent baseline across workplaces. While many employers already follow the Code or operate in ways that broadly align with its principles, respondents to Acas's 2023 consultation told us that the extent and quality of consultation vary across workplaces.

26. Across our 5 case study organisations, employers were concerned to make consistent and fair decisions for varied groups of employees. This is particularly relevant in the context of forthcoming legal changes that will require the employer's refusal to be reasonable. Ensuring that a meeting takes place should help employers reach decisions that are better informed and help employees understand the basis for an outcome even where agreement is not possible.

27. In Acas's 2023 consultation, responses indicated that a meeting with the employee was a useful step. For example, a majority of respondents supported the recommendation that an employer should offer an employee a meeting, even when they plan to accept their request. Advantages to offering a meeting focused primarily on providing the opportunity to discuss and clarify practicalities, logistics and expectations, and to confirm mutual understanding of the agreed flexible working arrangement.

28. Respondents further described the value of meetings in ensuring transparency and open communication, and how these factors contribute to much broader and longer-term goals of creating and nurturing meaningful relationships with staff and good workplace culture.

Question 19. How much advance notice do you think an employee should receive before the meeting is held?

  1. 1 day
  2. 3 days
  3. 1 week
  4. Other, specify:
  5. The requirement should be to give fair notice, accounting for ways of working within the organisation
  6. No minimum notice should be required
  7. Do not know

29. The requirement should be to give fair notice, similar to other workplace meetings such as disciplinary and grievance meetings.

30. However, we recommend that the most important factor for fair notice should be sufficient notice for a meaningful discussion. This should replace the current language of 'ways of working within the organisation'. Working practices are an important factor that any employer will consider, but the measure of fairness should primarily take account of the employee's ability to prepare. That is why the Acas Code of Practice explains that notice is important to make sure "all the relevant information is understood" and to allow "reasonable time to prepare for the discussion", given the employer controls the timing of that meeting.

31. We do not have evidence to support a specific period as listed above, but Acas recommends against a very short notice period. For instance, Acas does not see how one day's notice could allow preparation for meaningful discussion except in only the most straightforward cases.

32. In this context, 'fair notice' should be understood as providing enough time for both parties to prepare meaningfully for the discussion, while still arranging the meeting without unnecessary delay. It should also take account of individual circumstances, including caring responsibilities, disability-related adjustments or accessibility needs, alongside any arrangements for travel or technology.

33. In addition, 'fair notice' should take account of the availability of a trade union representative or companion, equivalent to the right to be accompanied to disciplinary and grievance meetings. The existing Acas Code of Practice on requests for flexible working also identifies accompaniment as good practice because it can help employees participate with confidence and support problem-solving.

34. Giving 'fair notice' is more likely to allow the employer and employee to work out if the request relates to reasonable adjustments. In our response below, we recommend this question is part of the preparation for the meeting, not left until the meeting itself. Identifying if the employee's request is a reasonable adjustment and preparing accordingly requires good time for both sides. Allowing this will help avoid wasted time from adjourned meetings, wherein one or both parties only realise that reasonable adjustments are in question after the meeting begins.

35. A single fixed minimum notice period might not accommodate the range of working patterns and operational models that employers use. The length of preparation time needed will vary depending on the complexity of the request, the employee's working arrangements, and the availability of the appropriate decision-maker.

36. Notice periods may need to differ where employees are remote, where shifts vary week to week, or where part-time staff would otherwise have insufficient working time to prepare. A fair notice requirement therefore enables the employer and employee to agree a timeframe that fits their specific circumstances, while giving employees enough time to consider any information they may need to bring to the meeting. This approach maintains necessary flexibility across different workplaces while upholding a clear and consistent expectation that meetings should be timely and well prepared.

37. If additional certainty is desired, guidance could offer indicative examples of what fair notice often looks like in practice.

Question 20. Do you agree with the proposed requirements for setting up the meeting?

  1. Yes
  2. No
  3. Do not know

38. Yes, Acas agrees with the proposed requirements for setting up the meeting. The proposals reflect the principles already established in the Acas Code of Practice, particularly the expectation that the meeting should be conducted by someone with appropriate authority to make, or contribute meaningfully to, the decision on the request. This is essential to ensuring that the discussion is substantive rather than procedural, and that any issues raised can be addressed constructively at the point of conversation.

39. The proposed requirements also support a consistent and transparent process. Clear expectations about who should conduct the meeting, the purpose of the discussion, and the need to allow employees adequate preparation time all contribute to a well-structured consultation. These elements mirror the practical guidance in the Code, which emphasises the importance of effective communication, early clarification of issues, and proper consideration of alternatives before a decision is finalised.

40. Analysis of responses to Acas's 2023 consultation on the draft Code found that a majority of respondents (91%) also wished to see guidance on the purpose of consultation and the matters needing discussion. Comments referred to the importance of viewing consultation as a two-way process which should be undertaken with a view to reaching agreement, including exploring alternatives. Several respondents, primarily organisational ones, recommended that Acas provide a checklist or framework for consultation discussions, either within the Code itself or in the accompanying non-statutory guidance.

41. At the same time, Acas recognises that employers and employees will need to adapt to operational needs. For example, small employers may have limited management tiers, making it more difficult to identify someone with the appropriate level of authority. Fast-paced or shift-based environments may face constraints in scheduling a suitable decision-maker or taking a worker 'off the tools', and multi-site or remote teams may need to coordinate discussions across different locations or working patterns. Meetings do not necessarily need to be held in person, and the option to hold them via video or telephone can help address some of these operational constraints. Clear, practical guidance will be important to support employers in navigating these challenges in a proportionate way.

Question 22. In your view, which of the elements set out in the suggested process above should be part of the meeting between a decision maker and employee about a statutory flexible working request? Select all that apply.

  1. Asking if the employee would like the request to be considered as a reasonable adjustment, in accordance with the Equality Act 2010
  2. Discussing any challenges in accommodating the original request
  3. Exploring alternative start dates for the proposed request
  4. Considering alternative arrangements that could be accommodated
  5. Discussing the option of a trial period
  6. Other, explain your answer:

42. Acas welcomes the government's proposed elements, which align closely with the Acas Code of Practice and help establish good practice. Embedding these principles in the statutory framework will support more consistent, transparent and constructive handling of flexible working requests, benefiting both employers and employees.

43. To increase the new law's effectiveness, Acas recommends that option (a) should be covered before the meeting. This is because early identification of whether the request may relate to a reasonable adjustment helps both parties prepare appropriately. A meeting to deal with a reasonable adjustment is likely to have different requirements to a statutory flexible working request. This ensures Equality Act duties are considered from the outset, reducing the risk of disputes later.

44. We know that these topics overlap in practice: in 2024 to 2025, 22% of early conciliation cases and 41% of employment tribunal cases had co-occurring jurisdictions of flexible working and disability discrimination. From 2021 to 2025, 'disability' was the second most common subtopic on helpline calls about flexible working. Of the 46,264 calls about flexible working in that period, 5,416 (11%) were tagged with disability also. Moreover, searches for 'reasonable adjustments' are the second most common subsequent search by users of our flexible working web pages.

45. Recent YouGov polling for Acas also indicates this is an area of uncertainty, finding that 1 in 10 employers are not confident identifying if a flexible working request relates to a reasonable adjustment. Including (a) within the meeting agenda helps surface this at the right time and supports fair handling.

46. Proposals (b) to (e) are practical steps that belong in the meeting and support effective implementation. Employers are generally confident handling applications; a 2025 Acas poll of employers found that 80 to 90% said they were confident to handle all aspects of flexible working applications. However, where confidence did dip (80 to 85%) it was related to implementing arrangements, identifying reasonable adjustments and handling appeals.

47. Moreover, a 2025 analysis of 50 Acas helpline calls highlighted concerns from employers about how to formally navigate their first experience of an employee submitting a formal flexible working request, and how to navigate any potential conflict resulting from this process. Addressing (b) to (e) in the meeting supports informed, collaborative problem-solving from the start, which is especially important given the wider scope for tribunal claims under forthcoming Employment Rights Act reforms.

48. Alignment with our Code of Practice matters because the Code is well-used, trusted and understood. Other Acas resources also demonstrate the popularity of our existing guidance on flexible working. Acas website data shows that from 6 April 2024 to 5 April 2025 users viewed flexible working content in 238,000 recorded website sessions. This includes the Acas Code of Practice, flexible working advice, templates and flexible working navigation pages.

49. Clear meeting content and signposting help reduce confusion for parties who are less familiar with the process. While insights from Acas's Beyond Hybrid 2021 analysis of 50 helpline calls were collected during the pandemic and reflect that specific period, they illustrate how, in high‑pressure or unfamiliar contexts, discussions can become adversarial when expectations are unclear. This analysis found:

  1. varying levels of awareness of flexible working, with many employers and individuals aware of the statutory right to request but limited in their understanding of the statutory procedure
  2. concerns around the fairness and reasonableness of requests and responses, with misperceptions of a right to 'have' rather than a right to 'request'
  3. a lack of confidence in reaching a resolution following a refusal, particularly where internal procedures such as an appeal have been exhausted

Question 23. Do you agree that employers should be required to communicate the outcome of the meeting, as well as the outcome of the statutory request, in writing?

  1. Yes
  2. No
  3. Do not know

50. Acas agrees with the proposal that employers should be required to communicate the outcome of the meeting, as well as the overall outcome of the statutory flexible working request. The employer should also make clear the employee's ability to appeal the outcome. Clear and timely communication is an important element of a fair and transparent process. It ensures that employees understand how their request has been considered and provides clarity about the next steps, including any agreed arrangements or reasons for refusal.

51. This proposal is also consistent with the guidance outlined in the Acas Code of Practice in this area. In the 2023 consultation, 91% of respondents agreed that employers should provide additional information to explain why a request was rejected. The Code emphasises that employees should receive sufficient detail to understand the rationale for any decision, supporting constructive dialogue and maintaining trust in the process. Clear communication also helps employees assess whether they may wish to discuss alternative arrangements or make a future request.

52. Reinforcing this expectation within the statutory process could help promote consistency and ensure that all employees receive clear and meaningful communication about both the meeting discussion and the formal decision.

Question 27. Do you have any further thoughts or suggestions on the process for the requirement to consult outlined above?

53. On balance, Acas considers that specifying consultation requirements will support effective and fair arrangements, and is unlikely to cause unnecessary disputes. This is because:

  1. the existing legal duty to consult already applies
  2. clearer steps should make compliance more straightforward
  3. the proposed steps are simple to understand, consistent with current good practice, and largely mirror those already encouraged in the Acas Code of Practice and non-statutory guidance
  4. following a structured and transparent process can provide employers and employees with confidence that a request has been considered fairly, which helps reduce the likelihood of disagreement or escalation

54. However, we recommend that the government acts to reduce the risk that the new process either leads to unnecessary disputes or over-formalises existing good practice. Ways to do this include:

  1. include an appeal in the required procedural steps
  2. allow the worker to be accompanied to the meeting
  3. train managers to deal with requests fairly and effectively, including where the employee needs reasonable adjustments
  4. promote the need to design policies in consultation with trade unions and other employee representatives

Avoiding unnecessary disputes

55. The proposals need to be implemented well to avoid unnecessary disputes. We recommend the government include a provision for the employee to be accompanied, and to make an appeal as part of the mandated steps to aid this. It is important that employers and employees make every effort to deal with concerns internally. Allowing accompaniment and appeals, as is already recommended in the Acas Code, helps ensure a fair process, gives the employee confidence, and provides the employer a chance to fix any errors or deal with new information.

Preserving the scope for informal arrangements

56. We recognise that introducing a mandatory meeting may raise concerns about over-formalisation, particularly in workplaces where informal approaches already work well for employers and employees.

57. Acas recommends that the legislation is supported by guidance and training that encourages parties to take a flexible and problem-solving approach. Informal approaches should be the first call, where managers have the right skills and employees are content with a less rigorous process. The government should work with Acas and other organisations to train and inform managers and employees to try informal arrangements where appropriate.

58. Both employers and employees may be discouraged by additional administrative steps:

  1. employers may be concerned about non-compliance. If so, they may feel compelled to use the formal statutory process in all cases, rather than agreeing informal arrangements that work well in practice. This could make employers more cautious about allowing quick, pragmatic test runs and instead direct employees towards formal applications unnecessarily.
  2. employees may be limited by the statutory cap of 2 requests per year. This would reduce their ability to iteratively test or refine flexible working arrangements, particularly where personal circumstances change unexpectedly, such as new caring duties.

59. An effective way to make sure informal processes are fair is to design the policy in partnership with employees. Collective agreements with trade unions can offer an effective way to work together on policies. In organisations with a recognised trade union, managers reported higher awareness of extended flexible working rights (Read Findings from the Management and Wellbeing Practices Survey). Where an organisation does not have a recognised union, other methods of employee engagement can be utilised.

60. We also highlight the need for skilled line managers. Our 2024 Organisational case studies on flexible working: variations in practice with the University of Southampton highlighted the need for skilled line manager discretion:

"A manager from Organisation A (retail) raised a point that was echoed by a number of managers. They argued that rigid adherence to organisational policy could make the process of deciding a request too drawn out. In their view, this was not always practical when responding to a sudden change in an employee's circumstances that would benefit from flexible working, such as following a family health crisis."

61. This research found that starting flexible working discussions informally with line managers (a non-statutory route) was beneficial due to their unique understanding of operational needs. For instance, within one case study organisation (a local council with 500 staff), only 5 to 10 statutory flexible working requests were dealt with each year. This was despite flexible arrangements being common at the organisation. These were handled by managers informally instead. Informal approaches kept decision-making within teams, which, according to interviewees, fostered a problem-solving approach.

Notes

62. Acas helpline users represent a particular population of the labour market consisting of those with concerns or queries about the workplace. The calls summarised cannot be taken as representative of the workforce and flexible working arrangements more broadly. However, the findings offer useful insights into the types of issues experienced and complement existing quantitative survey evidence in this area.

63. Acas's organisational case study research with the University of Southampton provides rich, qualitative insight into how flexible working operates across a small number of large service sector employers, but it should not be treated as representative of the wider labour market or workforce experiences (Read Organisational case studies on flexible working: variations in practice). The research draws on semi-structured interviews within five organisations and reflects the specific contexts, policies and managerial practices found in those settings, rather than offering a statistically generalisable picture of UK workplaces. Nonetheless, the findings offer valuable, illustrative evidence of the practical factors shaping flexible working arrangements in different organisational environments, and they usefully complement wider quantitative studies and survey data in this area.

64. Acas's "Beyond Hybrid" calls analysis was conducted in the midst of the covid-19 (coronavirus) pandemic, and so represents a specific and unique moment in the evolution of flexible working practices within the UK. It should not, therefore, be taken as representative of UK workplaces in general. The findings do, however, underline that for people unfamiliar with the system or engaging at times of great pressure, flexible working can be a confusing and adversarial process for both employers and employees that benefits significantly from access to good practice guidance and effective statutory protections.