Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • bluenose2
    • By bluenose2 3rd Jul 17, 1:55 PM
    • 7Posts
    • 4Thanks
    bluenose2
    Flexible Working. Reduce lunch break...
    • #1
    • 3rd Jul 17, 1:55 PM
    Flexible Working. Reduce lunch break... 3rd Jul 17 at 1:55 PM
    Good Afternoon,

    I have been with my company for over 5 years now and due to my daughter starting school in September I am required to change my hours in order to support with collection.

    Ordinarily I work 9-5 with a 1 hour lunch break but I am requesting a change in hours from September to 9-4:30 with a half hour lunch break.

    I have unofficially discussed this with my HR representative and he advised that I would be able to go down to the hours requested but cannot sacrifice my lunch break as they're unpaid, I would therefore have to take a salary sacrifice of a daily half an hour.

    Now of course I would much rather take the hit on lunch break in order to preserve my salary, am I being unreasonable here? Apparently they have rejected similar claims before and therefore it's unlikely mine would be accepted.

    I have asked them to arrange a formal meeting as per process but not feeling very confident based on the "informal conversation".

    Any suggestions or advice is appreciated.
Page 5
    • glentoran99
    • By glentoran99 15th Jul 17, 4:33 PM
    • 4,394 Posts
    • 3,241 Thanks
    glentoran99
    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.
    Originally posted by ScorpiondeRooftrouser


    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 etc
    • glentoran99
    • By glentoran99 15th Jul 17, 4:33 PM
    • 4,394 Posts
    • 3,241 Thanks
    glentoran99
    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 it
    Originally posted by unforeseen


    Possibly clutching at straws a little though, Anyway op has dropped it we will never know
    • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    • By ScorpiondeRooftrouser 15th Jul 17, 5:48 PM
    • 1,702 Posts
    • 2,473 Thanks
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    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 etc
    Originally posted by glentoran99
    Lucky you. Your company chose to allow your appeal.

    The fact that they can cope with one person leaving at 5 doesn't mean they can cope with everybody leaving at 5. If they allow one person to do so while losing nothing (losing half an hour of a lunch break that nobody in a professional environment takes is losing nothing) , everybody will want to. That's enough to disallow it. The fact that somebody allowed it for you doesn't mean they had to, and doesn't mean anyone else has to.
    Last edited by ScorpiondeRooftrouser; 15-07-2017 at 5:54 PM.
    • sangie595
    • By sangie595 15th Jul 17, 6:46 PM
    • 3,331 Posts
    • 5,519 Thanks
    sangie595
    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
    Originally posted by glentoran99
    You don't know that. Nobody knows that. The only people who can determine that to be true sit at the top table in employment tribunals. And since the OP isn't going there, that isn't going to happen. Just because it is your opinion, based on absolutely no knowledge at all, that these reasons don't apply, doesn't mean that they don't!

    I'm glad the OP must have another job and doesn't have to contest this. Glad they are pleased with their outcome. But let's not get carried away and imagine things that we don't know for a fact.
    • jobbingmusician
    • By jobbingmusician 15th Jul 17, 6:50 PM
    • 18,575 Posts
    • 18,838 Thanks
    jobbingmusician
    I'm not so sure the OP has another job. (She is very good at posting things which can be interpreted in more than one way!) I have concluded that the most likely outcome is that she has re-jigged childcare so that her current arrangement can continue!
    I'm the Board Guide on the Matched Betting; Referrers and Jobseeking & Training boards. I'm a volunteer to help the boards run smoothly, and I can move and merge posts there. Board guides are not moderators and don't read every post. If you spot an illegal or inappropriate post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com (it's not part of my role to deal with this). Any views are mine and not the official line of MoneySavingExpert.com.

    The good folk of the matched betting board are now (I hope!) supporting Macmillan, in memory of Fifigrace. Visit
    https://www.gofundme.com/running-the-leeds-10k-for-macmillan
    • sangie595
    • By sangie595 15th Jul 17, 6:51 PM
    • 3,331 Posts
    • 5,519 Thanks
    sangie595
    I'm not so sure the OP has another job. (She is very good at posting things which can be interpreted in more than one way!) I have concluded that the most likely outcome is that she has re-jigged childcare so that her current arrangement can continue!
    Originally posted by jobbingmusician
    True, ok. I did make an assumption that it appeared they had another job.
    • Bonniepurple
    • By Bonniepurple 15th Jul 17, 7:51 PM
    • 84 Posts
    • 91 Thanks
    Bonniepurple
    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!!!!!!
    Originally posted by sangie595
    This. One team I worked in we had to have the office phones covered 8.30-5pm. Each week we sorted a rota out as to who would to earlies and lates. It was usually the same people who volunteered as it suited them - after all, if you're in at 7.30 to beat the traffic, you can answer phones at 8.30! Likewise, if you come in at 10 you need to stay until 6 to get your hours in.
    • glentoran99
    • By glentoran99 16th Jul 17, 10:09 AM
    • 4,394 Posts
    • 3,241 Thanks
    glentoran99
    Lucky you. Your company chose to allow your appeal.

    The fact that they can cope with one person leaving at 5 doesn't mean they can cope with everybody leaving at 5. If they allow one person to do so while losing nothing (losing half an hour of a lunch break that nobody in a professional environment takes is losing nothing) , everybody will want to. That's enough to disallow it. The fact that somebody allowed it for you doesn't mean they had to, and doesn't mean anyone else has to.
    Originally posted by ScorpiondeRooftrouser


    Totally irrelevant, and not everybody wants to do the same thing, everyones circumstances are different, even if they did each application is looked at individually and the circumstances are the time, "because everyone will want to isn't a valid excuse"


    Someone in my office asked to do the same hours that I changed to, they were refused, the didn't appeal correctly so lost out


    They allowed it for me because they didn't have a valid reason not to
    Last edited by glentoran99; 16-07-2017 at 10:12 AM.
    • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    • By ScorpiondeRooftrouser 16th Jul 17, 2:10 PM
    • 1,702 Posts
    • 2,473 Thanks
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    Totally irrelevant, and not everybody wants to do the same thing, everyones circumstances are different, even if they did each application is looked at individually and the circumstances are the time, "because everyone will want to isn't a valid excuse"


    Someone in my office asked to do the same hours that I changed to, they were refused, the didn't appeal correctly so lost out


    They allowed it for me because they didn't have a valid reason not to
    Originally posted by glentoran99
    Well well done you. I bet you are popular. You are the very antithesis of unionism, aren't you. The best for me and **** everybody else.

    Any company with two ounces of sense would have refused your appeal rather than !!!! off every other worker they have.
    • FBaby
    • By FBaby 16th Jul 17, 3:50 PM
    • 15,627 Posts
    • 39,108 Thanks
    FBaby
    The reason has been given, it wasn't one of those, The company simply cant change the reason on appeal.
    The reference to policy is not to consider whether their reason for refusing is acceptable or not, it was asking about the policy for lunch breaks. If there is a policy that states clearly that lunch breaks have to be one hour, then that's the policy and there needs not be any reason to justify why this policy should be changed for a particular person because their offer of flexibility is not what the OP wants.
    • glentoran99
    • By glentoran99 17th Jul 17, 11:09 AM
    • 4,394 Posts
    • 3,241 Thanks
    glentoran99
    Well well done you. I bet you are popular. You are the very antithesis of unionism, aren't you. The best for me and **** everybody else.

    Any company with two ounces of sense would have refused your appeal rather than !!!! off every other worker they have.
    Originally posted by ScorpiondeRooftrouser


    Imagine that, Putting myself and my family first!!
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,215Posts Today

8,411Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Byebye! I'm about to stop work & twitter, to instead spend glorious time with Mrs & mini MSE. Wishing u a lovely summer. See u in 10 days.

  • WARNING Did you start Uni in or after 2012? The interest's rising to 6.1%; yet it doesnt work like you think. See https://t.co/IQ8f0Vyetu RT

  • RT @JanaBeee: @MartinSLewis Boris is the anomaly (coffee), the others are versions of normal (beer). Lots of same candidates = vote share d?

  • Follow Martin