BLOG
Understanding the legalities of mandated office returns
Written by Lottie Crompton on 12 March 2025
It’s no secret that working from home remains highly appealing to employees, offering benefits like greater flexibility, reduced commuting time and costs, and more family time. In fact, at the time of researching this article, I was working from home myself.
Prior to the pandemic, around one in eight working adults worked from home. By early 2023, an Office of National Statistics report found that around 40% of working adults had done so between 25 January and 5 February, highlighting a significant shift in workplace culture. Remote work suddenly became the norm.
However, as business needs evolve, a growing number of employers have started to reverse these arrangements. In recent months, major companies like Disney, Amazon and Starbucks have introduced stricter in-office policies, signalling the beginning of a new return-to-office push.
This shift has, unsurprisingly, been met with resistance. Advertising giant WWP has faced backlash over plans to implement a four-day office week, with over 8,000 employees signing a petition urging the company to reconsider. Staff at JP Morgan, who have been summoned back to the office full-time, have followed suit, collecting around 1,800 signatures at the time of writing. Clearly, these policies are unpopular among those who have embraced and benefitted from hybrid work.
Indeed, a recent study found that requiring extra office time could push a third of 25 to 34-year-olds to resign. Younger workers seem especially opposed to stricter office mandates, with 29% of 18 to 24-year-olds saying they would leave if forced back. Meanwhile, a 2024 KPMG survey found that 83% of UK CEOs expect a full-time return to the office within three years.
So, while these companies have simply announced an end to home and hybrid working and instructed staff to return to the workplace, is it really that easy to roll back these arrangements? Can employers force employees to return to the office?
Here’s how we recommend employers approach these scenarios and the legalities to keep in mind.
Start by checking what the contract says
In some cases – where there’s been no contractual change to reflect new home or hybrid working arrangements – reverting back to an office-first arrangement may be relatively straightforward.
If the employee’s contract lists the office address as their place of work, the employer will be in a much stronger position as they can simply rely on this contractual clause to enforce the return, unless of course the contract has been permanently amended to reflect remote working. It may still be reasonable to provide some notice – JP Morgan, for example, gave employees at least a month’s notice to allow them time to plan accordingly.
If hybrid working arrangements were not clearly communicated as temporary – despite lasting four or five years – then employees could argue that hybrid working has become an implied term of their contract through custom and practice. For a custom or practice to become a legally-binding implied term, it must be well established, consistently applied, and known to the entire workforce. Unfortunately, there are no set rules as to when this becomes the case – only an Employment Tribunal can definitively determine whether something is an implied term or not.
Do you need support?
Speak to us for an honest, no obligation chat on:
0345 226 8393 Lines are open 9am – 5pm
Check for a mobility clause – but execute it reasonably
If the contract doesn’t state the office as the employee’s place of work but does include a mobility clause allowing the employer to require them to work anywhere – either permanently or temporarily – with prior notice, the employer may have a contractual right to change their place of work. However, you must still consider whether this change is reasonable.
To exercise a mobility clause reasonably, employers should allow enough time for employees to make the necessary arrangements to enable them to return to the office. For example, they may need to organise childcare, adjust caregiving arrangements, figure out transport, and work around any other life factors. The amount of time required will, of course, depend on the employee’s individual circumstances.
If no mobility clause, consider making a contractual change
In the absence of a mobility clause, employers will be left with making a contractual change. This can be challenging, and if more than 20 employees are affected, collective consultation may be required. Any changes to employees’ terms and conditions would need to be agreed to. Otherwise, the employer may need to consider imposing the change unilaterally through termination and re-engagement, aka ‘firing and rehiring’.
In a situation where consulting with staff is appropriate, employers would be advised to:
- Compile a strong business rationale to justify why a return to the office is necessary; and
- Meet with employees to discuss the potential changes, explore their concerns, and consider any alternatives.
Failing to consult with employees or obtain their agreement to the changes could result in claims for constructive unfair dismissal and/or breach of contract if staff resign in response to changes made without their consent. Additionally, if the employer forces through the changes by way of termination and re-engagement, there’s a risk of unfair dismissal claims if employees don’t accept the new terms.
Forcing employees back to the office without justification may also lead to a breach of trust and confidence, which can in turn lead to resignations and make it difficult for employers to retain talented employees.
Deal with resulting flexible working requests
The right for an employee to request flexible working now applies from day one of employment. If an employer receives a flexible working request in response to a return-to-office mandate, it should be considered under an established flexible working request process.
This includes the employee making a formal flexible working request in writing, after which you would invite them to a meeting (with the right to be accompanied) to consider how the request can be accommodated. The outcome should be confirmed in writing; if the request is refused, the employer must provide a clear reason, which may include:
- The burden of additional costs;
- Detrimental effect on the ability to meet customer demand;
- Inability to reorganise work among existing staff;
- Inability to recruit additional staff;
- Detrimental impact on quality;
- Detrimental impact on performance;
- Insufficient work available during the periods the employee proposes to work; and
- The proposal does not fit with the planned structural changes.
Whilst employers can refuse flexible working requests from employees who wish to remain remote or hybrid, they must consider each request reasonably and on a case-by-case basis.
Be alert to discrimination risks
If an employee works from home or on a hybrid pattern due to health concerns or caring responsibilities, it will be important to consider whether forcing a return to the office may be indirectly discriminatory.
For example, an employee with a long-standing spinal issue who needs to work from home three days a week to alleviate barriers to performing their role could potentially bring a disability discrimination claim if they are forced to attend the office five days per week simply on the basis of company policy.
It’s therefore crucial to consider any potential discrimination risks, particularly relating to employees who have a long-term health condition that may require them to work from home. Remember, working from home can be a reasonable adjustment.
So, can employers force staff to return to the office?
Yes, employers can absolutely require staff to return to the office – but they must first assess their legal right to do so. Where no such right exists, they must follow a fair and lawful process, which includes consulting with employees.
With the return-to-office movement gaining momentum, employers should think carefully before following suit. Even if the legal right is there, it’s important to be mindful of the broader impact that forcing employees back to the office may have.
As we’ve seen, employees are likely to resist such changes, and research suggests that without a solid justification, employers could encounter resignations, decreased morale, and difficulty recruiting, ultimately impacting the organisation’s productivity and reputation. With this in mind, it’s worth asking yourself: do the potential commercial consequences outweigh the issue of hybrid working itself?
Related Content
Need advice?
If you’re navigating the complexities of bringing staff back to the office, WorkNest is here to help. Our team of Employment Law and HR experts can work with you to assess your rights as an employer and help you to implement changes compliantly, minimising disputes and legal risk. We can also handle any documentation requirements, including developing your policies and reviewing and updating your employment contracts to reflect new working arrangements.
For support, contact our team on 0345 226 8393 or request your free consultation using the button below.
