Part time hours refused as too many existing part timers

RichardD1970

Star999 wrote: »

The question is will that DAMAGE the business?
A company that employs 2,500 people?

Just because they employ 2,500 people doesn't mean they can just throw money away unnecessary.

Even in a business that size, every penny counts.

I worked at a company employing over 6000 people, it still went bump because it spent money needlessly.

Twisted_Cherry

My last employer tried this when I wanted to go Part Time on a permanent basis. I challenged it on the grounds I was a carer for someone and needed to reduce my hours both because of being a carer, and for the sake of my mental health issues... It was authorised!

Takeaway_Addict

Twisted_Cherry wrote: »

My last employer tried this when I wanted to go Part Time on a permanent basis. I challenged it on the grounds I was a carer for someone and needed to reduce my hours both because of being a carer, and for the sake of my mental health issues... It was authorised!

And? Just because one is authorised doesn't mean all will be. Also, if you had mental health issues then you may have been covered by the equality act where reduced hours would be seen as a reasonable adjustment.

There is no legal requirement for reasonable adjustments because someone becomes a parent.

Star999

notanewuser wrote: »

What if 10 people after you want to reduce their hours, and they need to pay 10 extra hours to get part timers to fill the gap?

What if 100 employees want to do that? Or 1000?

They should just do it because they did it for you, right? Even though that will cost them 520/5200/52,000 hours a year extra? At minimum wage that's about £3,300/£33,000/£333,000 off their profit margin.

Yes that that's a very logical chain of thought.

Just like what if 1 person asks for annual leave?

What if 10 people after want to annual leave for the same dates?

What if 100 employees also want annual leave at the same time? Or 1000?

They would have to just do it because they did it for the first person, right? Of course not.

Instead, it would be reasonable to just refuse the request from that ONE person on the basis of a very far fetched hypothesis that is VERY likely to happen. Yes, I see what you mean.

Poppie68

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

And? Just because one is authorised doesn't mean all will be. Also, if you had mental health issues then you may have been covered by the equality act where reduced hours would be seen as a reasonable adjustment.

There is no legal requirement for reasonable adjustments because someone becomes a parent.

Thats exactly what happened with me, i requested a reduction in hours 38 down to 16 hours, only got authorised because of illness covered by the equality act.

Star999

Poppie68 wrote: »

Thats exactly what happened with me, i requested a reduction in hours 38 down to 16 hours, only got authorised because of illness covered by the equality act.

If someone has an illness and requests reduced hours, does an employer HAVE to agree to the reduced hours?

Poppie68

Star999 wrote: »

If someone has an illness and requests reduced hours, does an employer HAVE to agree to the reduced hours?

No not at all, it still depends on the impact to business and other memebrs off staff. I was very lucky my employers were very good to me and after a year of doing the reduced hours my health deterioted and was retired 9 months ago.

Star999

Poppie68 wrote: »

No not at all, it still depends on the impact to business and other memebrs off staff. I was very lucky my employers were very good to me and after a year of doing the reduced hours my health deterioted and was retired 9 months ago.

I thought if someone makes a request for part time hours as a parent, they have to consider it seriously and must have a valid business reason for refusing it.
But it seems there are people here who are saying they can refuse for any reason they see fit, including situations that do not even exist!

notanewuser

Star999 wrote: »

I thought if someone makes a request for part time hours as a parent, they have to consider it seriously and must have a valid business reason for refusing it.
But it seems there are people here who are saying they can refuse for any reason they see fit, including situations that do not even exist!

They've given you a valid business reason - they can't manage the business with any more part timers.

Your statutory right is to make one request per year and have it seriously considered. You can't force them to agree.

notanewuser

Star999 wrote: »

Yes that that's a very logical chain of thought.

Just like what if 1 person asks for annual leave?

What if 10 people after want to annual leave for the same dates?

What if 100 employees also want annual leave at the same time? Or 1000?

They would have to just do it because they did it for the first person, right? Of course not.

Instead, it would be reasonable to just refuse the request from that ONE person on the basis of a very far fetched hypothesis that is VERY likely to happen. Yes, I see what you mean.

You've just proven my point.

They've treated the earlier requests in the same way as yours. They aren't compelled to agree to your request because they have for others. They don't have to let everyone that wants to take leave on a given day, nor do they have to let every person that asks for part time hours have them.

Good luck with the job search.