An employee's contract may not expressly provide for the flexibility that the company needs in order to introduce the change that it wants. In that case, the company might want to argue that it has an implied power to make the change, because the change is reasonable and in the company's business interests. However, terms are implied into employment contracts in only very limited circumstances.
Broadly speaking, a term will be implied only if the courts have accepted that the term is a necessary part of any employment contract, or it reflects what the parties to the contract obviously intended, or it needs to be included to make the contract work. (The basis of implied terms is discussed in more detail elsewhere in this Guide (implied terms)). For example, a manufacturing employer that wanted to relocate its manual workforce could not argue that it had the implied right to require the employees to move. If it wanted the flexibility to instruct employees to move, it would need to include an express mobility clause in their contracts.
If employees have worked flexibly in the past and accepted changes of the type that the company is now proposing, it could be argued that this implies that they have accepted flexibility as part of their contractual terms. However, that argument would be undermined if there was evidence that the employees had accepted change in the past as a matter of goodwill towards the company, and not because they considered themselves legally bound to do so.