Hybrid & Flexible Working

Hybrid and flexible working have become established features of the modern workplace. While organisations continue to recognise the benefits of greater flexibility in attracting and retaining talent, they must also balance employee expectations with operational needs, regulatory requirements and effective workforce management.

Approaches differ significantly across jurisdictions. Some countries provide employees with statutory rights to request flexible working, while others leave arrangements largely to employer discretion. Regardless of the legal framework, organisations are increasingly expected to adopt clear, transparent and well-governed approaches that support business objectives while managing legal and operational risk.

As hybrid working models mature, employers are increasingly focusing on issues beyond where work is performed. Cross-border working, performance management, data security, confidentiality, health and safety, tax and immigration considerations are all becoming important components of hybrid working strategies.
This section explores how different jurisdictions are responding to these developments and the practical steps employers can take to embed flexible working arrangements within robust governance frameworks.

UK

The Employment Rights Act 2025 introduces significant changes to the statutory flexible working framework, which are expected to come into force in 2027.

Employees in the UK currently have a day one right to request flexible working, and employers must deal with statutory requests reasonably and consult with employees before refusing them.

The reforms will require employers to demonstrate that it was reasonable to refuse a flexible working request, to explain why this was reasonable in the particular circumstances, and to follow a statutory consultation process before rejecting a request. The Government has indicated that the changes are intended to increase the likelihood that flexible working requests are approved where they can reasonably be accommodated and to encourage meaningful dialogue between employers and employees

Hybrid working continues to be a defining feature of working life for a significant proportion of the UK workforce. That said, many employers have increased office attendance expectations recently. Balancing business needs and office attendance requirements with a legal framework that increasingly supports flexible working can be challenging however - potentially giving rise to grievances, flexible working disputes and discrimination claims from employees resisting return-to-office requirements.

Hybrid working in the UK: Navigating the challenges of office attendance

Middle East

Hybrid and flexible working have become established features of the employment landscape across the GCC, particularly within multinational organisations. Unlike some jurisdictions, however, there is generally no statutory right for employees to work flexibly, meaning arrangements remain largely a matter of employer policy and contractual agreement.

For employers, the legal challenge is increasingly less about whether flexible working is permitted and more about managing the risks it creates. Remote and cross-border working can raise complex issues relating to immigration, tax, employment law, data protection, confidentiality and supervision, particularly where employees seek to work from another jurisdiction for extended periods.

As organisations continue to embed hybrid working into their operating models, clear policies, robust approval processes and effective governance are becoming essential to balancing flexibility with operational and legal compliance.

Read our full article here

Singapore

The Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangement Requests do not guarantee employees a particular working arrangement. Instead, the focus is on whether the employer has properly considered the request and can support its decision with genuine business reasons.

A preference for office attendance alone may not be the strongest basis for rejection. Employers should be prepared to explain how the proposed arrangement would affect matters such as productivity, supervision, collaboration, client requirements or information security. The practical risk therefore lies less in rejecting a request and more in doing so automatically or without a properly documented assessment.

Read our full article here

Hong Kong

Hybrid and flexible working arrangements remain largely voluntary in Hong Kong despite strong employee demand. These are matters of contract and employer policy, and there is currently no general statutory right for employees to request such arrangements. While adoption remains relatively limited, employers implementing such arrangements should carefully assess cross-border tax, immigration, cybersecurity and data protection risks, particularly where employees work across jurisdictions.

Read our full article here

Australia

Recent Fair Work Commission (FWC) decisions reinforce that while employees do not have a statutory right to work from home, employers must have reasonable business grounds to refuse flexible working requests. In Chandler v Westpac Banking Corporation (2025), the FWC found that general policy preferences alone were insufficient, requiring employers to identify specific operational impacts to justify a refusal. Conversely, in Polak v Macedon Ranges Shire Council (2026), the FWC accepted that in-person mentoring, team engagement and face-to-face collaboration constituted reasonable business grounds for requiring office attendance.

Interestingly, the Victorian Government has proposed new legislation that would significantly expand work from home rights for employees in Victoria, Australia. If enacted, the legislation would create a legal entitlement for employees to work from home two days per week unless an employer can demonstrate significant or excessive circumstances that justify refusing the arrangement.

The proposal has generated considerable debate among employers, employee representatives and policymakers. As a result, the Victorian Government has postponed the proposed commencement date from September 2026 to July 2027 to allow additional time for consultation and parliamentary consideration.
The future of flexible work arrangements in Australia continues to evolve. The Fair Work Commission has recently decided to introduce a work-from-home provision in the Clerks – Private Sector Award 2020, an industry-wide industrial instrument that sets minimum pay and employment conditions for many administrative and office-based employees. The new provision stops short of compelling employers to approve work from home arrangements but it does establish a formal process for employees to request work from home arrangements and a framework for resolving disputes. 

Together, these developments highlight the importance of employers ensuring that decisions about flexible work are supported by clear, evidence-based business reasons and aligned with operational and organisational needs.

Working From Home: How Far Can Employers Push Back? 

Chile

Chile regulated remote work and teleworking by statute and did so early: Law No. 21,220, published on 26 March 2020, incorporated its regulation into the Labour Code. The reform was decisively driven by the pandemic, but was structured as a permanent regime rather than an emergency measure, so that Chile now has a mature and detailed legal framework in an area that in other jurisdictions remains largely a matter of employer policy.

The agreement must be in writing and contain mandatory provisions subject to detailed regulation. It must be registered electronically with the Labour Board, failing which administrative fines apply, and the Internal Work Regulations must include a mandatory provision on health and safety measures applicable to this working arrangement. Flexibility is not entirely a matter of agreement between the parties: Law No. 21,645 establishes a right to telework for employees with caregiving responsibilities for children under fourteen or for persons with severe or moderate disabilities or dependency, and Law No. 21,498 requires employers to offer teleworking to pregnant employees during constitutional states of catastrophe or sanitary alert.

Three points merit attention from the multinational employer. Where teleworking is agreed in the original employment contract, neither party may unilaterally revert to on-site working; structuring the arrangement through a separate addendum preserves that flexibility. Cross-border remote working has no specific labour law regulation in Chile: in addition to questions of applicable law, immigration and tax, the Chilean employer retains health and safety duties that are difficult to discharge outside the country, and coverage for accidents or occupational illness occurring abroad is not clearly resolved. From 1 December 2026, the flow of employees' personal data to the country from which services are rendered will be subject to Law No. 21,719: the transfer will only be lawful if the receiving country has been declared adequate by the Personal Data Protection Agency, or if appropriate contractual clauses or binding corporate rules providing adequate safeguards are in place.

Egypt

Under the old labour law, remote and flexible work were legally undefined which created real ambiguity for employers, especially those with distributed or cross-border teams. The new law creates a category of "modern" or "unconventional" work arrangements, expressly covering remote work performed away from the employer's conventional workplace using technological means, part-time work with fewer hours than a comparable full-time role, flexible work with same total hours, but at non-consecutive times or with variation in timing/duration/location as agreed and job/work sharing.

These arrangements carry the same statutory rights and obligations as conventional employment and should not be viewed as a lesser category. Terms must be set out in the employment contract or a supplemental policy.

Employees under these arrangements may, by agreement, work for more than one employer or be self-employed alongside employment, provided no breach of confidentiality and business secret obligations.

Standard working hours, overtime and rest period rules continue to apply. In other words, flexible work redistribute hours and location rather than exempting employers from the framework.

Practical detail (equipment, expenses, monitoring, data protection for remote workers) is expected to be filled in by ministerial decrees.

We explore these changes, and what they mean in practice, in more detail in our full article

Kenya

Working arrangements under Kenyan employment laws remain contractual, subject to statutory protections under which there is no right to flexible work arrangements. Employment contracts are expected to clearly state the place of work and work hours hence these can be agreed between the employer and employee. The current risk lies with protections for persons with disabilities, as the Persons with Disabilities Act requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for them. Recent precedent from Kenya’s apex court has established a broad view of employers’ duty to accommodate employees who are disabled or suffering from health conditions.

Nonetheless, Kenya continues to position itself as an ideal destination for international remote workers. Foreign nationals engaging in employment or business activities outside Kenya and who wish to work remotely from Kenya can seek a Class N Digital Nomad Permit. The ease of entry through the digitised visa system, Kenya’s source-based taxation, and numerous double taxation agreements make this permit particularly attractive for foreign workers who can work remotely.

Tanzania

There is no statutory right to flexible working under Tanzanian law, so hybrid arrangements remain a matter of employer policy and individual agreement. Employers retain considerable flexibility to design working arrangements that suit their business, provided the core statutory protections on working hours, rest days and leave under the ELRA are respected regardless of where or how work is performed.

The more significant risk area is cross-border remote working, where a Tanzania-based employee works for an entity outside the country, or a foreign employee works remotely from Tanzania. This raises immigration and work permit questions, potential tax exposure, and questions about which country's labour law actually governs the relationship.

Employers operating hybrid models across Tanzania and Zanzibar should also note that Zanzibar's employment framework is separate from mainland ELRA, so a single group-wide hybrid policy needs local calibration rather than a copy-paste approach.

Takeaways 

• Develop a clear hybrid working strategy: Establish a framework that balances business needs, employee flexibility and legal compliance.
• Define expectations: Clearly communicate eligibility, working patterns, approval processes and performance expectations.
• Manage cross-border working carefully: Assess employment, immigration, tax, regulatory and data protection implications before approving overseas remote working.
• Support managers: Ensure managers are equipped to lead hybrid teams, monitor performance and maintain employee engagement.
• Review arrangements regularly: Monitor hybrid working practices to ensure they remain effective, compliant and aligned with changing business and regulatory requirements.