IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indlaw/v54y2025i1p57-86..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Right to Request Flexible Working: Evidence from Employment Tribunal Judgments

Author

Listed:
  • Megan Pearson

Abstract

This study examines five years of Employment Tribunal judgments on flexible working requests and uses a thematic analysis to identify the issues that have been litigated and to assess how employment tribunals, employees and employers have navigated the Act’s provisions. Whilst the right to request flexible working has been much critiqued because of its limited nature, there is little evidence and discussion of whether it provides a useable and effective process for employees and employers on its own terms. This article identifies three problems with the current legislation: employees can find it difficult to comply with the requirements for a valid statutory request, the difficulty of establishing and complying with the time limits in the legislation and finally the difficulty for tribunals in defining and applying core concepts relating to its power of review over employers’ decisions. These issues will not be resolved through the new Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act 2023 and in some ways will be made more difficult.

Suggested Citation

  • Megan Pearson, 2025. "The Right to Request Flexible Working: Evidence from Employment Tribunal Judgments," Industrial Law Journal, Industrial Law Society, vol. 54(1), pages 57-86.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:54:y:2025:i:1:p:57-86.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/indlaw/dwae016
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:54:y:2025:i:1:p:57-86.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/ilj .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.