After some HR advice

tigzem

Hello, I hope this is in the right place.

I work 22.5hrs over 4 days for a NHS trust. The hours suit me as I am a single parent and I have a daughter at school. I don't work Fridays. I have been in post for almost 4 years and I was the first person to do the job as it was a new unit.

The job is a job share and my colleague works 15 hours per week which again suit her and her family commitments.

Yesterday we were told by our line manager (no-one was present from HR) that the needs of the service has changed and our new manager has now requested that we both have to work 25hrs per week over 5 days. For me this is only an increase of 2.5hrs but means working an extra day.

I don't want to work to 5 days a week, the impact on childcare costs through the holidays will be greater than my increase of salary of 2.5hrs per week.

We were told that if we say no, then it will need to go through a HR consultation but our line manager didn't have a clear answer of what this entails but indicated that if the trust are unable to find us alternative employment then we would be out of a job.

Can they do this? We have contracts which state our hours, are they within their rights to change them?

We don't belong to any unions.

Grateful for any advice

KiKi

Hi there

If the service has needs which need to be met, then yes, they can change this. It's a bit like having a part time role - but then the business grows and it needs to be a full time role. If the part time person can't do a full time role, and if there are no other options to make it work, then that person could become redundant.

What you have on your side is that the public sector tends to be generous in flexible working and will usually try and find a solution.

For your meeting, you need to think how these extra hours can be made to work. Is there another part timer who'd like the work and could cover this for you both? Could the two of you get together and work out a working pattern that suits you both but covers ALL the hours? You need to show that you've got some viable, alternative options which meets the business' needs and gives you what you need.

You *could* also challenge the business need for extra hours, but the chances are that if they say they need them, then they have a good reason why, and your argument may come across as antagonistic if you haven't looked at alternatives. But, if you think the extra hours aren't required, then you could also cover this in the HR meeting and ask why there is the need. You could actually ask that beforehand - not in an aggressive way, but in a genuinely interested way - what is the reason for the need for extra hours? What are the business implications if they don't have someone doing these hours?

Your best bet is to look at what they're asking for - hours-wise - and you and your colleague choose your OWN working pattern within this that suits you both, that covers the hours, and take that as a proposal to them. That way, you may be able to avoid the extra day, but do more during the other days, and your colleague may have to compromise a bit, too. But don't go in with a silly proposal like "you could recruit someone to cover those 2.5 hours on that one day" - they'll never be able to get someone on that basis so won't consider it. You could also suggest 25 hours over four days (depending on the reason for needing extra hours) - that sort of thing.

Just be prepared to work with them, and be prepared with some thoughts on how it can work.

KiKi

KiKi

Adding one last thing: I don't recommend you mention the childcare issue as a reason to not do it. It's not their problem (harsh as that sounds!). You could explain that you've come up with some alternatives which will work for you, the other lady and the business as childcare would be an issue otherwise - but I don't recommend using it as an argument to not do the extra hours.

getmore4less

Find out what the business needs are, independant of the hours to start with.

There may be other solutions to the current proposal of 2*25hr 5days each.

ohreally

As an organisation, the NHS should be committed to adopting the values and principles of family friendly policies - you need to access these policies and use them to build your case to present to management. There should be specific policies regarding flexible working and family friendly working practises.

I suspect the problem you face is a manager who is disregarding them to facilitate their own agenda.

To effectively secure a positive outcome for you and your colleague, you need to ensure the effectiveness of family friendly practises, the best way for you to achieve this may have been through trade union assistance to ensure the policy is being effectively applied at local level.

KiKi

ohreally wrote: »

As an organisation, the NHS should be committed to adopting the values and principles of family friendly policies - you need to access these policies and use them to build your case to present to management. There should be specific policies regarding flexible working and family friendly working practises.

I suspect the problem you face is a manager who is disregarding them to facilitate their own agenda.

Possibly. But to say that the NHS "should be committed" - ie, implying they're not - is unfair.

The NHS HAVE been giving them hours that suit their needs, for some time it seems. Both employees. But they're not a charity, they're an organisation funded by public money, and if they do have genuine business needs, they have to be met. And they're also offering a consultation on it.

Assuming there is a business need, this is fair enough - they're not asking for full time hours.

If it's a manager with their own agenda, that should come out - hence my advice to ask why. But I wouldn't go in assuming the manager is in the wrong.

you need to ensure the effectiveness of family friendly practises, the best way for you to achieve this may have been through trade union assistance to ensure the policy is being effectively applied at local level.

Effective for whom? Family friendly does not mean you get what you want to suit your childcare costs. It always comes second to the business where business needs have to be met. If flexible working can work for both parties - then great. And it seems it has been working for this person for some time. But saying 'you need to ensure the effectiveness of family friendly practises' - this isn't in the employee's power. They can make their case, but it needs to be effective for the business as well.

And whilst I accept it may be a manager on a power trip, it may not, and I wouldn't go in assuming it's the former without evidence.


KiKi

ohreally

KiKi wrote: »

they're not asking for full time hours

Indeed, WT hours are 37.5 - the manager is seeking to increase this to 50hrs.

KiKi wrote: »

say that the NHS "should be committed" - ie, implying they're not - is unfair

I implied nothing - this is a statement of intent from a strategic NHS policy working group.

The content of the policies is to enable both employer and employees to benefit, while not to be applied on the whim of individual management.

The implementation often causes conflict, largely because given the choice, mangers tend to take the path of least resistance in terms of meeting their own need or priority - this is rarely the same as that of the employee seeking the flexibility.

As an isolated individual, the op may not be in a position of strength, indeed s/he may well require an individual who is able to navigate around policy/ agreement or who has strong influencing skills within the organisation.

Perhaps we can agree to disagree on the situation, outlook and best means to resolve.

KiKi

ohreally wrote: »

Indeed, WT hours are 37.5 - the manager is seeking to increase this to 50hrs.

The hours don't matter, though - what matters is what's needed. if you want to say it's two part time jobs, then so be it. But whether it's a job share or two part time jobs, if there's a need for more hours then there's a need.

(FTR, I job share part time; between me and job share partner we work 48 hours. It suits us both, and the business gets what it needs under one headcount. But if they needed me to work more I probably couldn't.)

I implied nothing - this is a statement of intent from a strategic NHS policy working group.

Apologies if I misunderstood you - the use of the word "should" sounded like you were implying they should be family-friendly and weren't. I agree that they 'should' - but it can't be the primary factor of employment (and I'm sure you wouldn't disagree with that!).

The content of the policies is to enable both employer and employees to benefit, while not to be applied on the whim of individual management.

Agree.

Perhaps we can agree to disagree on the situation, outlook and best means to resolve.

I don't disagree with what you just posted at all. What I disagreed with was the first post which (to me) implied that it wasn't family friendly for the OP and not effective because it didn't suit the OP. Which may not have been your intention but was how I read it. But if I mis-read, then I hold my hands up to that!

KiKi

ohreally

KiKi wrote: »

I don't disagree with what you just posted at all. What I disagreed with was the first post which (to me) implied that it wasn't family friendly for the OP and not effective because it didn't suit the OP. Which may not have been your intention but was how I read it. But if I mis-read, then I hold my hands up to that!

Kiki, no need to hold hands up - I'm content for folks to disagree with me, I simply didn't want a debate to detract from the original post.

Feel free to disagree in future.

tigzem

Thank you all for you replies.

The business need they are stating is to cover the phones on all 3 wards from 1.30 - 2.30, they will be employing one other person to work 25hrs per week so each ward will have cover for 5 hours a day, 5 days a week.

I am pretty certain I will say no to the proposal, we have to give a decision by next Friday.

I will have to await the outcome of the HR consultation even though I have no idea what that entails

whitewing

If they have three wards with phone cover for 5 hours a day, then it sounds like they need 3 people...I get that.

What are they planning to do to cover any of you being on holiday? Wouldn't they be better to have a 4th person to cover the additional hours and also to cover holiday? May mean that you couldn't take hols if one of the others was off. And of course it requires them to recruit a very flexible 4th person.