Flexible Working. Reduce lunch break...
Comments
-
But that isn't true, is it? The OP had done no more than have an informal discussion with HR. Why HR said it wasn't possible is utterly unclear- there is no detail to that. So there may (or may not) be a relevant reason. So, as I said, no law has been broken and everything else here is nothing but opinion.glentoran99 wrote: »The reasons given for rejection aren't applicable with reasons acceptable for rejection of a flexible working application0 -
This depends an awful lot on the size and nature of the company, and what cover is required. In our office, this doesn't work. we do a lot of stuff dealing with third parties which have rigid hours, we have clients coming in for appointments which means that you need to have reception fully staffed (and enough people available to man the phones etc), and we have a lot of work which has tight deadlines (e.g stuff that comes in at 3 and has to be out the same day)
We are as flexible as we can be with the needs or requests made by staff members but what we find is that very few people want to come in later in the morning, most want to leave earlier in the afternoons.
I think every single person who has requested flexible working in our firm has wanted to leave at 3, or 4, or 4.30. We are currently in a position where we could not grant a further request for the same as it would leave us understaffed. In a different field of work then things might be different, and the size of the organisation makes a difference as well.
Quite. We are a large organisation but spread over many locations. We MUST be available to members 8.30 - 17.00, Monday to Friday. As with your experience, nigh on every request we get (and we have been operating flexible working requests far longer than the law has!) is to finish early. We therefore have a rota system and everybody must work it. The,"office" must be covered. We have recently been able to establish telecoms systems that work through virtual networks, so the location of the "office" is no longer a complete fixed point. But "someone" will be working from 8.30 - 17.00 answering phones and directing calls. With only three people employed to do that, that means "what people want" isn't an option! So far we have never needed to look at regulating this - we have left them to work it out between themselves. And that has so far worked. If it comes a day when it doesn't, then the apparition of no flexibility will loom. And we're the union!!!!!!0 -
Hi All,
Just to follow this topic up, I had my meeting this week and the request was denied.
HR confirmed they are more than happy to accomodate my earlier finish but would have to dock my pay rather than taking half an hour away from lunch.
I'm still baffled as to why and I've just been told it's a "company decision" but it's something along the lines of "not being paid for lunches".
Either way, I will not be appealing and nor will I accept the dock in pay as I fortunately now have an alternative.
Thanks for all the comments and input.0 -
Paying you less for working fewer hours is not "docking your pay".
The "why", as you have been told, would be because there's probably only a handful of people, you being one of them, who actually take a full hour for lunch anyway. Most probably do a bit of work through it. They won't be happy to see you starting to do what they have have always done and then swanning off half an hour early.0 -
Hi All,
Just to follow this topic up, I had my meeting this week and the request was denied.
HR confirmed they are more than happy to accomodate my earlier finish but would have to dock my pay rather than taking half an hour away from lunch.
I'm still baffled as to why and I've just been told it's a "company decision" but it's something along the lines of "not being paid for lunches".
Either way, I will not be appealing and nor will I accept the dock in pay as I fortunately now have an alternative.
Thanks for all the comments and input.
Shame because you had a good chance of winning given their reasons0 -
If it's policy for thereto be a one hour lunch break then there is no point appealing. They do not have to justify not reducing it.
Maybe they've worded it badly but the actual reason is perfectly valid.0 -
unforeseen wrote: »If it's policy for thereto be a one hour lunch break then there is no point appealing. They do not have to justify not reducing it.
Maybe they've worded it badly but the actual reason is perfectly valid.
its not, it does not fit with any of these
the burden of additional costs
an inability to reorganise work amongst existing staff
an inability to recruit additional staff
a detrimental impact on quality
a detrimental impact on performance
detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand
insufficient work for the periods the employee proposes to work
a planned structural changes to the business.
The fact that they are happy for the change in hours negates everyone of those as a reason0 -
The last but one on the list maybes goer. They have an extra person working for half an hour but there may be insufficient work to justify it0
-
glentoran99 wrote: »its not, it does not fit with any of these
the burden of additional costs
an inability to reorganise work amongst existing staff
an inability to recruit additional staff
a detrimental impact on quality
a detrimental impact on performance
detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand
insufficient work for the periods the employee proposes to work
a planned structural changes to the business.
The fact that they are happy for the change in hours negates everyone of those as a reason
No it doesn't. The effect can be indirect as well as direct. If it has a negative impact on other existing staff, it impacts performance.0 -
ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »No it doesn't. The effect can be indirect as well as direct. If it has a negative impact on other existing staff, it impacts performance.
The reason has been given, it wasn't one of those, The company simply cant change the reason on appeal. As I said earlier I have direct experience of it and won, The reasons initially given were not too different from the OP, The change also similar, reducing lunch etc0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343K Banking & Borrowing
- 250K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.6K Spending & Discounts
- 235.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards