Flexible working

emily07_2

hi, just trying to find out my rights with regards to flexible working. I currently have a flexible working agreement with my employer and have been working the hours i requested for little over a year. i put my flexi request in after having my second child and currently work 16hrs a week. I have just recieved notification that my hours are to be changed due to business needs. I have been given a choice of 3 shifts and have to rank them in order of preference. i have also got to increase my hours to 18? two of the shift choices are a no go as its evening work and my other half works nights so would have no childcare. The other shift would involve me going into work an extra two days on top of what i already work in a week so costing me more in childcare.
My question is does anyone know if i have a right to keep my hours that i currently work? I signed an agreemnt with my employer for this and it was all done officially. I have heard on the grapevine that if i (and it does include other flexible part timers at my workplace) cannot work any of the shifts or refuse then i could lose my job. Is this allowed?
Any advice would be appreciated.

SarEl

Yes, this is allowed. Just as you asked for and were granted a variation to your contract, the employer has now decided that they need to ask employees to vary their contracts for business reasons. If you cannot work any of the aletrnatives because of childcare respnsibilities then this may constitute a redundancy - but it by no means certain that this would be the case.

macalacka

What kind of working environment do you work in?

This sounds like a restructure. Have you spoken to the HR Manager about your specific circumstances? You may have to resubmit a flexi working request to be considered in line with the restructure. However, it may be that it cannot be accepted and so redundancy would be the only option for you.

kingfisherblue

But would the OP be made redundant? My understanding is that it is the job that is redundant, not the person, but presumably if the OP cannot work the hours required, someone else will have to work them and therefore the job is not redundant (hope that makes sense!)

McKneff

I dont think redundancy is the right word. The OP wouldnt be able to work the available hours, surely thats a 'we'll have to let you go'
They will soon find someone else to do the business needs hours tht are available.

Has the law come in yet that allows employers to get rid for any reason within two years.

SarEl

kingfisherblue wrote: »

But would the OP be made redundant? My understanding is that it is the job that is redundant, not the person, but presumably if the OP cannot work the hours required, someone else will have to work them and therefore the job is not redundant (hope that makes sense!)

The post would almost certainly be redundant. Posts are redundant, not people. People are dismissed because their post is redundant. Big difference. The post is a certain job with certain hours. It would appear that job with those hours does not exist any longer and the potential suitable alternative employment on offer is not suitable because of childcare / parental responsibilities. This could be held to be a valid reason to refuse the suitable alternative position, and hence gives rise to a claim of redundancy. Based, of course, on what the OP has said about the circumstances.

kingfisherblue

Thanks McKneff and SarEl - I didn't think it was the person who was made redundant. I can see the difference between the job and the post though, I just didn't think of it that way. I was thinking that the job obviously still needs to be done, but didn't think about a new post with an additional two hours and different shifts.

Thanks for the explanations.

SarEl

It is easier to think of the "job" as "workload" - because that is all it is, a workload that has been packaged. Worload often continues to exist even when a position has been legitimately made redundant. It is one of the two most common complaints about redundancy - the work still exists so how can they make me redundant?

grandmaster00

do you by any chance work for rbs insurance?

KiKi

SarEl wrote: »

The post would almost certainly be redundant. Posts are redundant, not people. People are dismissed because their post is redundant. Big difference.

(I shall save your quote for when I next say this on this forum and then get walloped by others telling me it's just 'HR rhetoric that's meaningless'. I'll be able to come back with 'SarEl agrees'. )

OP, I hope you get it sorted. Unfortunately you are not entitled to the flexible working pattern you have if there's a good business reason for changing them, but you've had some good advice on here.

KiKi

System

Would there be a different take on this if one of the options was the OPs job/hours before the flexi-time changes? I.E the original job spec.