Understanding the Reasonableness Test in Flexible Working Requests

Flexible working is now a 'day one' right, which means that employees are able to submit requests as soon as they begin working for you. That does not mean every request must be agreed, but it does mean employers must handle requests properly, fairly, and reasonably. One of the most misunderstood parts of the process is the reasonableness test.

In this post, we will explain what reasonableness really means in practice, how it differs from the statutory refusal grounds, and what employers should be evidencing when making a decision.

What is the Reasonableness Test?

The reasonableness test is a guideline used by employers to evaluate requests for flexible working hours or arrangements. It requires employers to consider whether the requested changes are practical and can be accommodated without causing disruption to the business operations.

There is no single definition of reasonableness in flexible working law. Instead, reasonableness is assessed by looking at the overall handling of the request, not just the final decision.

A reasonable approach means the employer has:

• considered the request properly and in good faith

• followed a fair and timely process

• assessed the request against the business context

• avoided blanket policies or assumptions

• based decisions on evidence rather than preference

Even if a request is refused, the employer can still meet the reasonableness test if the process followed was sound.

Do Employers Have to Accept Flexible Working Requests?

While employers are encouraged to seriously consider flexible working requests, they are not mandated to accept every request.

The statutory grounds for refusal

Employers can only refuse a flexible working request for one or more of the statutory reasons set out in legislation. These include:

• the burden of additional costs

• detrimental effect on 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

• insufficiency of work during the periods the employee proposes to work 

• planned structural changes

These are often misunderstood and are sometimes applied too broadly. In practice, each ground requires genuine consideration and a clear link to the role and business context. A general preference, discomfort with flexible working, or concern about setting a precedent is not sufficient.

Let's look at the statutory reasons in a little more detail:

Burden of additional costs

In practice, this might include the need to pay overtime regularly, hire additional staff, or invest in extra equipment or supervision directly as a result of the request. Minor or short-term costs are unlikely to justify refusal on their own.

Employers should be able to explain what the cost is, why it arises, and why it cannot reasonably be managed.

Detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand

In practice, this could include reduced coverage during core hours, slower response times, or fewer staff available when demand is highest. The assessment should be evidence based, for example looking at peak periods, service level expectations, or contractual obligations.

It is not enough to say customers expect availability; the employer should be able to show when and why coverage would be affected.

Inability to reorganise work among existing staff

In practice, this might be relevant in small teams, specialist roles, or where colleagues already operate at capacity. Employers should consider whether duties can be reshaped, shared, or scheduled differently before relying on this ground.

Simply not wanting to change how work is allocated is unlikely to be reasonable.

Inability to recruit additional staff

In practice, this could be due to skills shortages, budget constraints, location, or the nature of the role. Employers should be cautious about using this ground without evidence, particularly if recruitment has not been explored or is assumed to be impossible.

Detrimental impact on quality

In practice, this might involve reduced oversight, loss of continuity, or issues with collaboration where these are genuinely required for the role. Quality concerns should relate to outputs and standards, not visibility or presenteeism.

Detrimental impact on performance

This is often confused with quality but relates to productivity, efficiency, or outcomes.

In practice, this could include slower turnaround times, missed deadlines, or reduced output that cannot reasonably be managed. Employers should consider whether performance concerns are evidence based or speculative, and whether a trial period could address uncertainty.

Insufficiency of work during the periods the employee proposes to work

In practice, this might be relevant where work is driven by external demand, fixed schedules, or specific time-bound activities. Employers should consider whether duties could be adjusted before relying on this ground.

Planned structural changes

This ground applies where the business is undergoing, or has firm plans for, reorganisation, restructuring, or changes to roles.

In practice, this must be more than a vague future intention. There should be a clear plan or proposal that would conflict with the requested arrangement.

Common mistakes employers make

In practice, reasonableness often falls down due to poor handling rather than the decision itself. Common issues include:

• rejecting requests without discussion

• relying on how things have always been done

• applying the same refusal to different roles without analysis

• failing to consider trial periods

• not documenting the decision making process

A refusal that is technically lawful can still be unreasonable if the process is rushed, dismissive, or inconsistent.

What a reasonable assessment looks like

A reasonable flexible working assessment should include:

• a conversation with the employee about the request

• a full exploration of alternatives, adjustments, or compromises

• an assessment of impact on the specific role, not the person

• consistency with how similar requests have been handled

It should also take account of the wider context, including workload, team structure, service delivery, and any relevant equality considerations.

Employers do not need to prove that a flexible working arrangement will fail, but they do need to show that their assessment was reasonable, thoughtful, and grounded in the reality of the role and business.

Good practice includes documenting considerations, exploring alternatives, and explaining decisions clearly. Where there is uncertainty, a trial period can often reduce risk and demonstrate reasonableness.

Handled properly, even a refusal can strengthen trust and reduce the likelihood of disputes.

How to meet the "Reasonableness" standard

For small businesses, this change requires a move away from generic "business as usual" rejections toward an evidence-based approach. To demonstrate reasonableness, we recommend the following steps:

• Evidence the Impact: If citing "additional costs," be prepared to show specific figures or data. Avoid vague assertions.

• Explore Alternatives: Reasonable employers should show they considered other options. If a full-time remote request is not feasible, could a hybrid model or a trial period work instead?

• Document the Consultation: The requirement to consult is now a statutory must. Keep detailed records of the discussion, the points raised by the employee, and the business’s counter-arguments.

• Review Policy and Training: Ensure managers understand that "no" is no longer a default answer. They must be equipped to assess the feasibility of requests on a case-by-case basis.

Reasonableness and discrimination risk

Reasonableness is particularly important where a flexible working request relates to childcare, caring responsibilities, disability, health conditions, or menopause related issues.

A refusal may expose the business to indirect discrimination claims if the employer cannot show that its approach was proportionate and objectively justified.

This is why documentation matters. Employers should be able to show not just what decision was made, but how it was reached.

Process still matters even if the answer is no

Flexible working law is clear that employers do not have to say yes. What they do have to do is show that they listened, considered, and responded appropriately.

A reasonable process reduces legal risk, supports employee relations, and demonstrates that the organisation takes flexible working seriously rather than treating it as a tick box exercise.

The Risk of Non-Compliance

Failure to meet the reasonableness test or follow the correct procedure can lead to claims in an Employment Tribunal. While compensation for a stand-alone flexible working claim is capped at eight weeks’ pay, these cases often overlap with indirect sex discrimination or disability discrimination claims, where awards are uncapped.

Practical tips for employers

To demonstrate reasonableness in practice:

• use a structured process for all requests (you can download our FREE flexible working request form here)

• train managers on how to assess requests objectively

• avoid informal refusals or off the record conversations

• keep clear notes of discussions and rationale

• review decisions for consistency across the business

At Saltwater HR, we can help small businesses navigate these legislative changes by auditing existing policies and providing clear, practical guidance on handling requests fairly. Get in touch today.