11 July 2023

The publication of the results of a six-month trial involving around 2,900 UK workers who moved to a four-day working week received a great deal of media coverage earlier this year. The organisers of the trial described it as a success. In this article, we briefly consider the trial report and discuss some legal points which will be worth considering when coming to a decision about whether to trial a four-day week in your business.

This trial was not led by the Government; it was organised by Autonomy Research Limited, a UK-registered not-for-profit research organisation which, among other services, offers consulting to companies wishing to implement a four-day working week. It is also important to note that the trial did not investigate ‘compressed’ hours (whereby employees’ usual weekly hours are reallocated to four days rather than five); instead, the experiment was based on the 100-80-100 model, whereby workers receive 100% pay for working 80% of their previous hours while committing to maintaining 100% productivity.

The models

Sixty-one organisations volunteered to take part in the trial. While some organisations simply closed for one day per week, others adopted different models. Organisations that needed to maintain five-day coverage used staggered days off, or employees ‘buddied up’ with a colleague with similar skills in order to cover each other’s time away.

Businesses with strong seasonal demand opted for annualised hours. Others adopted a ‘decentralised’ approach, allowing each department to work out the best model for its needs. Some organisations made continuation of the scheme for specific divisions conditional on the meeting of key performance indicators (KPIs).

The results

After the trial ended, 92% of the participating organisations continued with the arrangement, many in order to assess its impact over a longer period. By the time of publication of the report, 18 organisations had adopted the four-day week permanently. (This outcome needs to be considered in context: participating organisations were self-selecting and received support to implement the change.)

Positive impact

The trial report notes an improvement in employee well-being, with 39% of employees stating that they felt less stressed at the end of the trial and 71% reporting reduced levels of burnout. Employers reported significant decreases in employees leaving and in absence rates.

Only 23 of the participating organisations provided data on changes in revenue, reporting an average 1.4% increase in productivity over the six-month trial period.  

Downsides

This may not be a realistic option for many businesses. For example, it may not be affordable to recruit more staff or pay more overtime, thereby increasing the wage bill, to facilitate the time off. Businesses which need to ensure continuous cover may have particular difficulty, particularly once absences due to annual leave and sickness are taken into account. Managing working hours and sufficient cover, as well as monitoring performance or the fulfilment of KPIs, is likely to use up management time and create administrative challenges. For example, the trial did not consider customer satisfaction.

These arrangements may not achieve one of the desired outcomes of improved employee well-being in all cases; in fact, they could have the opposite effect for some people. Although the principle is that employees will work more efficiently, for instance by jettisoning unnecessary meetings, those with intense workloads may struggle to get everything done in reduced hours.

Some employers may find that the four-day week works in some parts of their organisation but not in others. This presents a difficult decision in weighing up the localised benefits against the damage to workforce morale and cohesion which may result from allowing only certain staff to work under a four-day policy.

Legal implications

There are a number of legal issues to consider when introducing the four-day week, whether as a trial or permanently.

Contractual changes

Contracts of employment will need to allow for the new working arrangements. Flexibility clauses may allow the employer to make the necessary changes, but these still need to be brought about in a reasonable way. If there is no flexibility in the contract, employers need to agree changes to working hours and patterns with their employees. Some employers may need to introduce a requirement for employees to work shifts or work overtime to provide cover for colleagues.

When considering any kind of contractual change, employers need to factor in the time and resources required to consult with staff to seek their agreement. Changing working hours and patterns could affect childcare arrangements or arrangements staff have in place to accommodate a disability. Care needs to be taken when introducing changes to address individual circumstances; failure to do so could be discriminatory.

Employers looking to run a trial should make clear to employees the temporary nature of the arrangement. This means that any contractual changes should give the employer the option to revert to the original working hours at the end of the trial. However, again, any reversion should be carried out in a reasonable manner, including by giving sufficient notice and taking individual circumstances into account.

Part-time workers

Part-time workers are protected from less favourable treatment than full-time employees. To ensure that they are fairly treated, an employer could, for example, decrease their hours pro rata or increase their pay. Otherwise, there is a risk of employment tribunal claims.

Double-jobbing

Faced with the cost-of-living crisis, some employees may use a newly acquired day off to take on a second job. This could lead to fatigue – particularly if the pace of their main job has increased due to the introduction of the four day-week – and a consequent reduction in the individual’s productivity. In some settings, such as healthcare and construction, tiredness can present a danger to the health and safety of the worker and others. When checking for compliance with the rules on working time and rest breaks, employers must take into account any work done for other employers.

We can check whether your contracts address this situation and discuss how to introduce provisions to require, at the very least, that employees tell you about a second job. For some roles, the contract should address conflicts of interest and confidentiality issues that could arise.

Holidays

Employers may wish to reduce the total number of days of annual holiday allowance to reflect the reduced number of working days. This contractual change needs to be agreed as part of the package of changes. Where employees do not consistently work on the same days of the week, such as on a staggered arrangement, we can advise you on how to take account of public holidays.

How we can help

If you are considering piloting a four-day week or restructuring your working arrangements, we can help you to evaluate the implications of the different options for your business.

For further information, please contact the team at Synchrony Law.

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. Please note that the law may have changed since this article was published.