The debate over hybrid working is no longer really about whether it is here to stay. For many employers, the real question is how far they can go in requiring staff back into the office, and what legal and practical risks come with a return-to-office mandate.
In the City and beyond, many if not most businesses are reviewing attendance expectations as they look to strengthen culture, collaboration and supervision. However, a blanket “back to the office” approach can create contractual, legal and employee relations issues if it is introduced without care — and it can also undermine efforts to retain experienced talent.
Why this is such a live issue?
Hybrid working has become deeply embedded across UK businesses. CIPD reported in 2025 that 74% of organisations had hybrid working in place, while 65% required employees to be in the workplace a minimum number of days each week or month. At the same time, many employers are still weighing the benefits of flexibility against concerns about productivity, management and team cohesion and are often under pressure to make sure teams are connected and visible, especially in client-facing or regulated environments.
That tension is driving many of the disputes we are seeing now. For a growing number of employees, flexibility is not a “nice to have” — it is the difference between staying in the workforce and stepping back or leaving altogether. At the same time employers may want more consistency, quicker collaboration and a stronger sense of accountability.
However, our sense is that employers who make it possible to keep working in a way that accommodates employees’ lives are often the ones who retain the most experienced and committed people. This in turn helps those businesses to thrive.
Can employers require office attendance?
Yes — but the answer depends on the individual contract and the way the arrangement has been handled in practice. If an employee’s contract says their place of work is the office, the employer will usually have more scope to require attendance, particularly where remote working has been offered through a policy rather than written into the contract.
The position becomes more complicated where hybrid working has been in place for a long time, or where managers have treated it as an established norm. In those cases, employees may argue that the arrangement has become contractual by custom and practice, or that they are entitled to rely on it particularly where they have made life changes as a result of that reliance e.g. moving further away from the office or reducing their childcare. Any attempt to change that should be approached as a formal change to terms with the requisite consultation, not just a casual management instruction. Once the restrictions on “fire and rehire” are tightened by virtue of the Employment Rights Act 2025 on 1 January 2027, this route will become more complex and attract a higher degree of legal risk.
Legal risks and equality considerations
The biggest risk is assuming this is only an HR or cultural issue. A return-to-office policy can engage several legal claims at once, including indirect sex discrimination, disability discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal should an employee decide to resign in response to an RTO requirement.
For example, a policy that requires all employees without exception to be in the office three or four days a week may have a disproportionate impact on staff with childcare responsibilities, which can raise indirect sex discrimination issues. This approach may be difficult for an employer to justify legally, and may also clash with wider efforts to promote gender diversity at senior levels.
Likewise, if an employee has a disability or health condition and remote working would amount to a reasonable adjustment, an employer may need to make an exception.
This is why careful consideration matters. A policy that sounds commercially sensible and reasonable can still create legal risk if it is applied rigidly, without considering individual circumstances.
Flexible Working
Every employee has the statutory right to request flexible working, including hybrid or remote working arrangements. Under the current regime, employers must deal with requests reasonably and can only refuse for one or more of the permitted business reasons.
This law is becoming more restrictive for employers. The upcoming reforms under the Employment Rights Act 2025 (due at some point in 2027) are expected to raise the bar further in that employers will only be able to refuse a flexible working request if it is reasonable for them to do so (within the current specified reasons) and explain their reasoning in writing. In practice, that means formulaic responses are likely to be much less defensible than perhaps they once were.
For employers, the message is simple: if you are going to refuse hybrid working, you need a rational justification with supporting evidence..
Questions to ask before mandating a return
Before introducing or tightening a return-to-office policy, employers should ask:
- Is homeworking or hybrid working written into contracts, or only into policy?
- Has the arrangement become established over time in a way that may create employee expectations or contractual entitlements?
- Have we considered the legal risks, including indirect sex discrimination and the impact on carers and disabled staff?
- Do we have a clear business rationale for the change, such as supervision, collaboration, client service or performance management?
- Are managers trained to handle objections consistently and sensitively?
Addressing these questions will help employers distinguish between a commercially justified attendance policy and a poorly communicated change that will trigger disputes, damage diversity and push valuable talent out of the workforce.
Final thought
The safest employers are the ones that review contracts, consult properly, consider discrimination and health‑and‑safety issues, and keep an open mind about the approach to be adopted and exceptions to the approach rather than starting from a fixed position.
This aspect of employment practice is simply entering a more legally disciplined and strategically important phase. Employers who work constructively with staff taking this into account will be more likely to avoid costly litigation battles and retain talent in their workforce for longer.