An employer may decline a request for flexible working only if they can demonstrate that they have reasonably considered the request and refused it for one of the following business reasons:

*Inability to rearrange work among existing staff
*Burden of additional costs
*Detrimental effect on the ability to meet customer demand
*Inability to recruit additional staff
*Detrimental impact on quality or performance
*Insufficiency of work when the employee proposes to work
*Planned structural changes.

These provide some leeway for refusal. However, rejecting a flexible working request could potentially lead to claims of sex or disability discrimination if handled improperly. Employers should accommodate requests where feasible, even on a trial basis. In cases where a request is declined, careful consideration and documentation of the reasons for refusal, including the specifics of each case, are essential.

A bland assertion that ‘the GM believes having staff in the office minimum 4 days will encourage all for there to be a more collaborative environment’ may not be enough.

Quote "An employee has requested for FW and their request was rejected based on the following: - there will be a negative impact on performance" - Has this been proven and specific details to show this been documented?

Quote" there will be a negative impact on the business ability to meet customer demand" - Has this been proven and specific details to show this been documented? E.g. why cant the the business meet customer demand? has it been proven that this has been the case for the while time they have previously been working from home? Is this an individual performance issue? if so, has this been previously addressed?

If the original request cannot be fully accepted, have you explored if it's possible to attain some of the benefits sought in the original request. This could involve considering modifications to the original proposal or exploring alternative flexible working arrangements that could be acceptable to both parties.

Discussing the feasibility of a trial period to assess the viability of the arrangement could also be beneficial.

If you do decide to reject the employee's request, the written decision should clearly explain the business reason(s). It should also set out any additional information which is reasonable to help explain the decision.

Quote "However, the employee has a son and husband who have ADHD and states that the husband is unable to cope with the son if she is in the office 4 days per week. Could she claim discrimination by association if the appeal is rejected? Or Should we agree to her working 3 days from the office for a period of time and then review it at a later stage" -

If this has been refused for one of the business reasons above then i don't understand why you are asking if you "Should just agree to it" If it is feasible to accept, then just accept it?

Female employees who are unable to fulfil caring responsibilities due to a denied flexible working request could potentially bring forth an indirect sex discrimination claim under the Equality Act 2010.

Thank you Chris for your comment much appreciated.

Just to add to Chris' advice, WFH means that and is not a substitute for care.

If they were asking to work less hours/days due to caring responsibilities then that is a different matter to consider.

In reply to Chris:

Although Chris's answer is correct, it is worth noting that there is really very little obligation on the employer to "prove" their assertion of a detrimental impact on performance or quality at the outset of a request and, even if the case ended up at a tribunal, the standard of evidence required isn't especially high. It is

Furthermore, the consequence of an improperly refused FWR is capped at, iirc, 8 weeks' pay with no obligation on the employer to approve the request afterwards.

The main risk to employers of refusing an FWR is that the employee resigns and you lose *all* of their labour, and the secondary risk that they claim CUD on grounds of discrimination. If you reach that point, you are on the hook for a higher standard of evidence that the decision was not discriminatory. So it is definitely worth having at least some idea of how you would evidence whether a proposal would or would not have a negative impact on performance and/or quality.

The safest pathway, of course, is to agree a trial period specifically for the purpose of measuring whether it results in an impact on quality or performance. If you are so concerned about the risk that you can't manage a 3-month trial then the risk must, surely, be quite easy to evidence.

Thank you for the advice.