Will Labour introduce a “four-day week”?
10 September 2024
The “four-day week” has received voluminous media coverage recently. On 29 August, the Telegraph published a story which led with the claim that “Workers are to be given new rights to demand a four-day week in a law planned for this autumn”. Other media outlets have responded with similar stories (adjusted for editorial stance).
As yet, the details of any plans are unclear. Labour did not mention the four-day week in its election manifesto, but it did incorporate a commitment to “mak[e] flexible working the default from day one for all workers, except where it is not reasonably feasible”. Later, in the briefing notes which accompanied the King’s Speech in July 2024, Labour stated (in, arguably, a slightly stronger wording) that the forthcoming Employment Rights Bill will “mak[e] flexible working the default from day-one for all workers, with employers required to accommodate this as far as is reasonable”.
Many employers will be aware of the existing statutory right to request a contract variation, usually known as a “flexible working request”. This enables an employee to request a change in their working hours, times, or location. In other words, requesting a four-day week is already a right – but although the employer must deal with any such request in a reasonable manner, there is no statutory duty to accept it or even to be reasonable in a refusal, as long as it is not based on incorrect facts and one of the statutory grounds for refusal (such as the burden of additional costs) is met.
In practice, an employer often needs to exercise caution in its response to a flexible working request, since refusing a request can give rise to other liabilities. For example, if the employer refuses to vary a pattern of work which puts women at a particular disadvantage (e.g., because of childcare responsibilities), it may be liable to an indirect discrimination claim unless the insistence on a particular working pattern can be justified. Another possible liability arises where the request is made by an employee who is disabled, in which case the employer may be obliged to make reasonable adjustments. The employer also needs to bear in mind that, if it is deemed to have failed to deal with a flexible working request reasonably, the employee may be entitled to regard themselves as dismissed and bring a claim for damages (a “constructive dismissal” claim).
This means that, as the law stands, an employee can request a four-day week, and an employer’s discretion to refuse will be broad in principle but relatively constrained in some circumstances. Labour’s commitment to obliging employers to accommodate flexible working as “the default […] as far as is reasonable” might indicate an intention to introduce a totally new right for employees to vary their contractual hours or location (qualified by an employer’s right to impose a working pattern in defined circumstances). Or, more moderately, it might mean introducing a criterion of reasonability for refusal of a request. Currently the intention is unclear. In 2019, the Conservative Party made a very similar manifesto commitment (to make flexible working the “default unless employers have good reasons not to”); but this led to changes (including the “day-one” change, covered here) which, though significant, did not make it more difficult for employers to refuse requests per se.
In order to clarify the underlying issue, it is also useful to ask: what do we mean by a “four-day week”? Taking a typical salaried role on standard office hours from Monday to Friday, a request to work a “four-day week” might mean at least three different things:
Reducing contractual hours by 20% from five days to four, with a corresponding reduction in pay (i.e., “going part-time”)
Compressing contractual hours into four days, with no reduction in hours or pay (i.e., a “compressed hours” schedule)
Reducing contractual hours by 20% from five days to four, with no reduction in pay (i.e., a “100-80-100” model, whereby workers commit to 100% productivity for 100% pay while working only 80% of their previous hours)
[1], [2], and [3] could all form the basis of valid flexible working requests under the current legislation, and an employer might lawfully refuse (or agree to) any of them. The recent coverage, to the extent that the issue has been defined, has mostly focused on option [2] (compressed hours) – but sometimes option [3] (reduced hours for the same pay), which is much more radical, has been discussed. In our view, it is difficult to imagine the Government making it really difficult for an employer to refuse a type [3] request, and there is nothing in the wording of the Labour policy documents to suggest that this is envisaged. Arguably some of the recent coverage has therefore led to unwarranted confusion. The type [3] model was prominently trialled in 2022; we covered this here.
However, it does seem likely that Labour intend, by some means, to at least make requests of types [1] and [2] more burdensome for an employer to refuse. It is also possible that the remedies available to an employee for their employer’s non-compliance with flexible working legislation will be strengthened. (Compensation currently stands at a maximum of eight weeks’ pay at the statutory weekly pay cap.)
How soon could changes take effect? The autumn timescale referred to by the Telegraph most likely refers to the introduction of the forthcoming Employment Rights Bill in Parliament, not an actual change in the law. It is more likely that any changes would come into force in the second half of 2025, at the earliest. We have covered the other possible contents of the Employment Rights Bill here.
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.