More employers across the globe want higher office attendance, uncovering tension between employees who prioritise flexibility and some companies’ vision for the future of workplace dynamics.
.jpg?VersionId=nsn8rH4wI30MOHx3gyKGRHF1NMf7oWrj)
Shutterstock.com/Andrew Boyd Studio
Businesses are increasingly reevaluating remote working practices and formally requiring employees to work a minimum number of days in the office.
Amazon was among the first major corporations to ditch its flexible working model, asking 300,000 employees worldwide to return to full office attendance by January 2025. Many others, including JP Morgan Chase, Walgreens Boots Alliance, and Dell soon followed. Companies moving away from flexible working models contend that physical presence in the office enhances employee engagement, fosters a stronger corporate culture and boosts team productivity.
More than 60% of US businesses have already introduced return-to-office policies, according to a survey by US consulting firm WTW, and 83% of CEOs in the UK anticipate a full return to the office within the next three years, according to KPMG.
However, many employees have come to value the flexibility of remote working, preferring to continue to work at least part of the time at home and, in some cases, championing more innovative working structures that protect work-life balance, such as the four-day week. Many are resisting the push to revert office attendance to pre-pandemic levels. For example, staff at Amazon and global communications agency WPP launched petitions calling for their CEOs to reconsider their return-to-office orders.
Lexology PRO explores the key practical considerations and risks employers need to weigh up before calling for a return to the office. The specific challenges will vary across different jurisdictions, however, some of the main issues for employers to consider in many jurisdictions are outlined below.
Key considerations when implementing return-to-office policies
Determine whether working from home is a contractual right
The starting point of introducing any return-to-office policy is reviewing employment contracts. The place of work stated in these contracts will help determine whether a company can require office attendance in line with a contractual agreement.
Companies often grant employees the privilege of working from home through a separate remote working policy, distinct from their employment contract. These policies usually expressly reserve the right to make changes based on the company's operational needs. This means companies can reduce the provision or remove it entirely without the need to renegotiate contractual terms.
For companies that have formally amended employment contracts to designate an employee's home as their official place of work, the situation is likely to be more complex. Mandating a return to the office for these individuals could be perceived as a significant change to their terms of employment, necessitating a cautious approach from employers to avoid employee claims for constructive dismissals.
Consult with employees before mandating
Involving employees in the communication stages of change management helps align them with organisational goals, according to a McKinsey report, making them less resistant to mindset and behaviour shifts.
If an employment contract is unclear or if there has been an agreement for remote work that the employer now wants to change, companies should initiate a dialogue with employees individually or collectively. In some jurisdictions, consultation with employees, either directly or via a trade union or work council, may be required by law. Even with a contractual basis for requiring office attendance, opting for a consultation process is a wise move. Being transparent about the changes the organisation intends to make will allow the employer to manage employee expectations, get ahead of complaints and minimise potential legal challenges.
Key to a positive consultation process is ensuring employers craft a clear and consistent message about the reasons for the return-to-office directive. Engaging with employees becomes significantly easier when the company's rationale is defined from the outset and should help limit misinterpretation from the press regarding the employers’ intentions.
Manage flexible working requests fairly
Demanding employees return to the office could spark an increase in flexible working requests, especially in the UK, where requesting flexible working became a day-one right in April 2024 under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Flexible working requests must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and employers should carefully examine individual circumstances to comply with statutory obligations. The proposed Employment Rights Bill – expected to take effect in 2026 or later – will require UK employers to demonstrate that their refusal of a flexible working request is reasonable, possibly making it harder for companies to refuse requests outright.
Employers have a duty to make reasonable adjustments where a policy substantially disadvantages employees, especially those protected against indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. For example, employers may find themselves in sticky legal territory if they take disciplinary action against an employee with disabilities who is unable to adhere to a return-to-office policy due to these circumstances.
The last resort: fire and rehire
If companies and their employees cannot reach a mutual agreement to change contractual terms, UK businesses may consider ‘fire and rehire’. This involves terminating existing contracts of employment and offering employment on new terms following a consultation process.
Although legal, this course of action has been criticised for eroding employers’ rights and job security, leading to high compensation adjustment costs, legal complications for employers and reputational damage. With UK reforms closing in on firing and rehiring practices, this option is best left as a last resort.
Prepare workspaces
Before enforcing a return to the office, employers must be ready to support in-person work. Businesses should shape the office environment to meet workforce needs, providing enough desks, strong Wi-Fi, smart-room technology, and private spaces for focused tasks, for example.
Employers should assess their workspace capacity and make necessary adjustments to accommodate all employees. Otherwise, logistical problems could arise. For example, after a company-wide directive ending working from home, JP Morgan Chase’s London office couldn’t accommodate all 14,000 of its London-based staff due to limited desk space.
Mandating return-to-office: what are the risks?
Internal conflict
Implementing an unpopular return to the office policy could jeopardise trust and confidence between employers and employees, potentially undermining relationships. Such actions could ignite internal conflicts like the clash reportedly experienced by JP Morgan Chase at its February town hall, which could strain the overall fabric of a company’s culture.
Employee claims
UK employment tribunal cases contesting remote working are rising and will likely continue to increase as companies summon employees to return to the office, according to HR consultancy Hamilton Nash. These cases pose a significant risk to employers because most hearings are held publicly and are more likely to attract negative media coverage and cause reputational damage.
Discrimination claims in particular could result in serious financial repercussions for employers if claimants are successful. For example, in 2023, Nationwide Building Society was ordered to pay over £350,000 in compensation to a former employee made redundant for refusing their return-to-office mandate.
However, UK employment tribunal decisions to date have tended to favour employers that have legitimately refused statutory requests for remote working. In 2023, a tribunal dismissed a manager's claim against the Financial Conduct Authority after it rejected her request to work from home permanently.
Loss of talent
Critically, enforcing an unpopular return-to-office policy could hamper companies’ ability to retain and attract talent. Employees accustomed to remote working patterns may become dissatisfied and seek other job opportunities if they are forced to return to the office. A survey by FTI Consulting found that 70% of US remote and hybrid workers would likely seek alternative employment if asked to return permanently to the office at their current salary.
Ignoring employees' needs and preferences risks losing top performers and could make it challenging to hire new employees, especially in a competitive job market where flexibility is a key differentiator.