As employers such as Instagram, Amazon and JP Morgan Chase mandate five day office attendance, questions arise about the legality of return to office policies and the challenges they present. Steve Pires, Trainee Solicitor and Employment Partner Charlie Thompson, examine the legal and practical issues.

The end of hybrid working?

2025 has marked a turning point in workplace policy. Large companies are increasingly restricting or ending flexible working arrangements, particularly in London, signalling a move away from hybrid and remote models.

Employers are tightening office attendance policies with Instagram requiring its 20,000 US staff to return full time from February 2026. John Lewis have mandated three in person days a week from July 2025. Other organisations are introducing attendance monitoring, with managers receiving reports on staff who fail to meet minimum office day requirements.

While small businesses continue to embrace flexible working, larger corporations are signalling a tougher stance of that there is a risk career progression.

The rapid adoption of artificial intelligence is also influencing how leaders think about hybrid work and reshaping workflows.

Companies that succeed will treat hybrid work not as a perk  but as a system requiring ongoing refinement. For employees, the challenge is to identify environments that support focus, connection and career growth.

The Covid-19 pandemic led to a fundamental shift in the way businesses operated and resulted in mass adoption of remote working practices. As the pandemic eased, employers began requiring employees to return to the office, with many employees now required to be in the office at least some days of the week. However, some employers are now looking to bring employees back to the office full-time, citing concerns such as low productivity and engagement from its workforce. This raises the key question: can your employer insist you return to the office?

Starting point: the employment contract

Employers must provide employees and workers with a written statement setting out the terms and conditions of their employment, which includes their normal place of work. In most cases, this will be contained in a contract of employment. If an employer states that the normal place of work is the office, they can ask their employees to return to the office full time.

Often, employers won’t set out remote working conditions in the employment contract. Instead, they will typically have a separate policy on agile and remote working providing employees with a non-contractual right to remote working, which the employer can normally change unilaterally.

Can employees refuse to return to the office?

An employee who does not have a contractual right to work remotely and unreasonably refuses a request from their employer to return to the office full time, could face disciplinary measures for misconduct. Depending on the seriousness of the misconduct and the unreasonableness of the refusal, an employer could dismiss an employee in such circumstances.

However, employers will need to consider any refusals to return to the office on an individual basis. There is a risk that insisting employees return to the office full time could raise concerns of discrimination. For example, some employees may not be able to work from the office five days per week due to an underlying health condition, which is a disability for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. Depending on the circumstances, subjecting an employee who cannot comply with a return-to-work policy, to disciplinary action, or dismissing them, might be unlawful.

Employers also have a duty to make reasonable adjustments where a policy substantially disadvantages employees with a disability or care responsibilities.

Employers must recognise the wider impact on mental and physical wellbeing. Although many thrive on the structure, social interactions and mentorship from being in the office, for others a rigid five day office policy can increase stress, reduce work–life balance, and negatively affect employees who rely on flexibility to manage health conditions, caring responsibilities or educational commitments.

Employers have a duty to make reasonable adjustments where a policy substantially disadvantages employees with a disability. Importantly, not all disabilities are visible and not all conditions are explicitly listed. However, many may still qualify as disabilities under the Equality Act 2010 if they have a long term and substantial impact on day to day activities. Employers must therefore take a proactive approach, considering both visible and non-visible conditions when applying attendance requirements.

Employees may also need flexibility to accommodate their partner’s work schedules, childcare arrangements or caring responsibilities for relatives. Failure to account for these realities risks disengagement, higher turnover and potential claims relating to indirect discrimination. Office mandates must be applied fairly across all staff, with genuine consideration for employees’ diverse circumstances and needs.

Employers that discriminate risk significant financial penalties and lasting reputation damage if an employee pursues a claim in the employment tribunal. Hearings in the tribunal are normally held in public and there is no cap on the level of compensation a tribunal can award a successful claimant.

Balancing an office-first culture with employee concerns

It appears many businesses would prefer:

• In-person collaboration / ‘office-first’ culture
• Improved in-person training, especially for junior employees, including on the job learning and mentoring
• Interaction to enhance wellbeing and mental health
• Effective use of expensive office space and equipment
• Increased productivity
• Consistency and fairness for all employees

However, some employees are resisting this change, rejecting their employers’ justifications.

Some businesses are offering incentives that come with certain risks: larger pay raises for those who come into the office compared to those who do not. Promotions and/or bonuses for employees who attend in person.

Even if the changes proposed are not contractual, employers should involve employees in the discussion. Speaking openly to employees and responding to their concerns will help with creating an atmosphere of trust which may limit potential future disputes.

The flexible working framework

Since 6 April 2024, the Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act 2023, employees have had a day-one right to request flexible working. An employee could, therefore, make a written request under the statutory procedure to work from home a certain number of days per week. An employee can make two flexible working requests every 12 months and the employer must communicate their decision to the employee within two months of the request (longer if agreed upon by the employee).

The employer should consider the request and can only reject it if it falls under one of eight business reasons set out in the Employment Rights Act 1996, such as if the flexible working request would have a detrimental impact on quality or place additional costs on the employer.

What reasons can your employer reject your flexible working request?

An employer can only reject an employee’s request if one or more of the following reasons apply:

1. The additional costs,
2. The detrimental effect on the ability to meet customer demand,
3. The inability to reorganise work among existing staff,
4. The inability to recruit additional staff,
5. The detrimental impact on quality and performance (if your job is client facing or unable to carry out your role at home)
6. The insufficiency of work during the periods the employee proposes to work, and/or
7. Any planned structural changes.

There are, we think, defects with the existing flexible working legislation: an employer does not need to provide a sufficient or reasonable explanation as to why the flexible working request has been denied. Although an employer must consult with the employee and deal with the request in a reasonable manner, it does not have to justify its decision.

The government has proposed important changes to the legislation in its highly anticipated Employment Rights Bill. It proposes introducing a test of reasonableness and requiring employers to not only state the ground for refusing the request but also to explain why they consider it reasonable to refuse the request on that ground. Although these changes are welcome, in reality they would have little practical impact as the grounds an employer can rely on to refuse a request are broad. So, in practice, an employer would have little difficulty justifying a refusal.

Should employers think twice about their return to the office policy?

The reasons cited by employers for a return to the pre-pandemic norm of working in the office five days a week is that it helps improve team bonding and collaboration. Some employees also say they feel more productive and engaged in the office than at home. That said, employers should consider the drawbacks of cutting out remote working completely.

Many employees, primarily those from Generation Z, have been accustomed to remote working and the flexibility it affords, for their entire careers to date. In light of the mental health crisis among young people, a transition to full-time office attendance could have a negative impact on their wellbeing and those who are neurodivergent who require a sensory-friendly environments.

The UK is facing an economic inactivity problem, with a sizeable proportion of working age adults in the UK deemed not to be actively looking for work. Further, more women tend to be classed as economically inactive compared to men, likely due to the greater child caring responsibilities they still have. Any reduction in remote working will inevitably lead to more women remaining out of the economic market.

Over the next decade, advancements in artificial intelligence could result in fewer office workers being required in the economy. Employers should, therefore, consider the impact of asking their workforce to return to the office as this will lead to additional costs on office space and overheads that may end up being wasted if many of these workers’ jobs become remote or even redundant.

The move towards mandatory five day office attendance reflects a significant shift in workplace culture. For employers, these policies must be carefully managed to remain compliant with employment law, particularly around contractual terms and flexible working requests. For employees, the challenge lies in balancing career progression with personal circumstances and wellbeing.