The end of hybrid working?

Posted: 10/02/2025

For many, one of the very few silver linings to come from the Covid-19 pandemic was the increased flexibility to work remotely. By cutting out the commute, many employees suddenly found they had a few extra hours to spend on work, family, personal responsibilities or downtime, and were one step closer to that often elusive ‘work-life balance’. 

Others felt that hybrid working helped lower their monthly outgoings amidst a cost-of-living crisis where wages, in most cases, were not keeping pace with inflation and rising transport costs. Many employees will have made permanent changes, such as moving house or reducing childcare, as a result of this new way of working.

For some employers, the onset of the pandemic and the rise of hybrid working brought permanent changes to the workplace. Recently however, there has been an increasing trend for employers to take a harder line on office attendance. Barely a day goes by without another business hitting the headlines with its plans to get people back into the office. Last week Lord Sugar waded into the debate with the typical directness familiar to viewers of BBC1’s The Apprentice: ‘They’ve got to get their bums back to the office.’ 

Recent examples include Barclays Bank and Starling Bank, which at the end of 2024 ordered that office attendance must increase from two days a week to a minimum of 10 days per month. Amazon, Boots and JPMorgan Chase have gone one step further and said some of their staff are required to work from the office full time. Amazon’s CEO Andy Jassy said that he believes that the ‘advantages of being together in the office are significant’. It is notable that one of President Trump’s first orders of business was an executive order to get federal employees back in the office five days a week.

In a similar move, last month Lloyds Banking Group announced that senior staff may have their bonuses cut if they fail to attend the office at least twice a week. In recent days even Dell, the US technology company whose products include remote working solutions, has announced that staff must return full-time to the office from March. So is this the beginning of the end of hybrid working, and are we likely to see a mass return to the office as the pandemic becomes a distant memory?

The pros and cons of hybrid working

There are, of course, numerous advantages of allowing hybrid or home working for employers, including:

• increased employee satisfaction;
• better retention rates (perhaps particularly of working parents or those with caring responsibilities);
• reduced costs if they are able to downsize on office space (which tends to be an employer’s biggest cost before salaries); and
• access to a wider pool of talent. 

However, increasingly employers are seeing more cons than pros, with concerns about a decline in efficiency and productivity, supervision challenges (especially of junior employees who may need more assistance), and a lack of communication and team cohesion. Some businesses are experiencing issues with a ‘two-tier’ workforce, with manual workers being unable to work from home while clerical workers, and often more senior staff, are able to do so. Clearly, it is not a simple decision for many businesses.

The legal implications of a return to the office

If employers do want to enforce a partial, or total, return to the office, how should they go about it? The first thing to do would be to check any hybrid working policy, and contracts of employment – has there been a permanent change to employees’ terms and conditions so that they now have a contractual entitlement to work from home, whether expressly or impliedly, as a result of custom and practice? Employers who make unilateral changes to employees’ terms and conditions can face claims for breach of contract and even constructive dismissal. Termination and re-engagement, or the practice of ‘fire and rehire’, is never an easy process, and the ability to do so is being clamped down on further by the Labour government. Even where contracts contain clear mobility clauses, allowing an employer to change an employee’s place of work, such clauses must not be exercised unreasonably. 

Policies which require full time office attendance and/or which link office attendance to bonuses could potentially be discriminatory. The Equality Act 2010 makes it unlawful to discriminate against a person based on a protected characteristic such as pregnancy, disability or sex. If an employee is unable to attend the office, for example due to pregnancy-related ill-health or a disability, they may have a discrimination claim. 

Sex discrimination claims are also a possibility. It is accepted by the courts that women are more likely to take a larger role in childcare than men. A policy that requires increased work attendance and/or linking a bonus to office attendance impacts all employees, but has the effect of particularly disadvantaging females due to the childcare disparity. Employers are therefore at risk of indirect discrimination claims. However, if an employer is able to justify that their policy is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, they may be able to defend such a claim. 

Employers who wish to enforce a return to the office are likely to encounter resistance from staff. For example, when Starling Bank ordered employees to increase their office attendance, it was widely reported that the bank had a number of resignations from employees who would seemingly rather leave their role than have to increase their office attendance. Interestingly, according to Professor Nicholas Bloom, a Stanford University economist, tens of thousands of employees in the UK, US and Europe valued the ability to work from home for two days a week about as much as an 8% pay rise. 

What is clear is that, as in so many cases where changes are proposed, consultation with staff and their representatives is key. Employees need to understand the business reasons for the request, as well as what is in it for them. Can a change be brought in at the same time as the annual pay review, for example? Avoid making too big a change too quickly – staff will need time to prepare, and many will need to make practical arrangements. And beware a one-size-fits-all approach – many employees will have sound reasons why they are unable to work in the office full-time. An impact on employee retention can be expected, at least in the short-term. 

Employers know their businesses best, and there is no single answer to this debate. For many employers and their staff, hybrid working, with the right balance of working from the office and from home, will be the answer. But with more and more companies demanding a return to the office, and politicians and other public figures quick to join the debate, it is clear that this issue will not go away any time soon. 

At Penningtons Manches Cooper we are experienced in advising employers and employees in relation to work policies and discrimination claims. If you would like to discuss your matter with us, please contact a member of our team.  

Return to news headlines