Flexible Working Application Denied...HELP

getmore4less

if the message got through you would resign if you could not go part time and the maternity cover is working well, interested in full time and cheaper then no wonder they said no.

Don't resign, say disappointed go back very positive, see how long they are happy paying for 2 people, and look for alternatives in the company.

Kayalana99

getmore4less wrote: »

if the message got through you would resign if you could not go part time and the maternity cover is working well, interested in full time and cheaper then no wonder they said no.

Don't resign, say disappointed go back very positive, see how long they are happy paying for 2 people, and look for alternatives in the company.

It's a shame really as your not supposed to lose out by going off on maternity, but here is a real example where OP has trained this girl who is 5k cheaper and now they are in the position where they don't have to give OP flexible hours because they have already got someone to replace her if she doesn't come back. It sounds as if Becky was thinking with her heart but the new guy is doing what's best for the company - trying to keep the new girl doing the job at a cheaper cost to them.

I assume if this other woman wasn't doing the job anywhere near as well, they would have done anything to keep OP happy. Appreciate it's life, but essentially she's being forced out of her role because she was off having a baby.

I guess you have to do what's right for you, but this poster has an excellent point if you were to go back f/time...wait until they get rid of the new person then request flexible hours again with the view of leaving if they say no - I wonder if they would change their tune!

getmore4less

Kayalana99 wrote: »

but essentially she's being forced out of her role because she was off having a baby.

She does not want the role, very different to being forced out.

vqmismatch

Kayalana99 wrote: »

essentially she's being forced out of her role because she was off having a baby.

Perhaps my view is clouded by my very negative experiences of working with part timers and job sharers, but I read it more as the job has stayed the same but she has changed in what she wants to work.

The business have significant problems with her going less than full time and she won't consider staying full time, therefore the role she left and won't return to is no longer suitable for her. Perhaps if she offered to take a pay cut on her X% of the job in order to offset the additional costs they might be more interested, although if this is a first child and she may be keen to follow soon with another I can see why they may be better off parting ways.

COI: I seem to spend half my life struggling with 'you will need to talk to X, she works here every Y when she can get childcare', my better half has the same issues in her line of work.

Undervalued

Kayalana99 wrote: »

It's a shame really as your not supposed to lose out by going off on maternity..........

.......Appreciate it's life, but essentially she's being forced out of her role because she was off having a baby.

Nonsense.

She has a right to her original job back so how can you say she is being forced out?

What she does not have a right to (only a right to request and have it considered) is a different working arrangement to suit her new circumstances.

Some companies go out of their way to be flexible but others, perhaps including this one, do only the minimum the law requires. The OP will have to choose between her original job, maybe hoping that things will change over time, or look elsewhere for something more suitable.

bugslet

AliceMS88 wrote: »

Now this notice period is where I am going to struggle....I took 8 months of maternity and then have used the last 4 weeks as annual leave which has used up my full allowance. I guess the worst case scenario is that I will have to put baby into full time childcare and just put myself at a loss financially for those 6 weeks...which I will hate but I guess I will have to do! Nothing like losing money to go to work

.

I suspect that you could negotiate not having to do full notice - it would be financially advantageous to you both.

I don't think you sound bitter, more disappointed. I think it's unfortunate that Gary is a by the book person and he doesn't know you particularly. You come across very well.

Kayalana99 wrote: »

, but here is a real example where OP has trained this girl who is 5k cheaper and now they are in the position where they don't have to give OP flexible hours because they have already got someone to replace her if she doesn't come back.

!

That's supposition. They may have valid commercial reasons other than the new person costing less, for denying flexible working. The reduction in wages is perhaps just a rather nice addition.

It really depends on the roler of the applicant. There isn't really one job in our company that could be done on job share, too much happens every day that continues onto the next day and having full time staff makes for smoother running.

TELLIT01

Kayalana99 wrote: »

but essentially she's being forced out of her role because she was off having a baby.

No she isn't. Her old job is still there is she wants to take it up. The OP wants to change her hours and the company has not been able to accommodate the request. It's no different to any other person in the company asking to reduce their hours. If the company says No, there are two options - accept the decision or get another job.

Takeaway_Addict

Kayalana99 wrote: »

It's a shame really as your not supposed to lose out by going off on maternity, but here is a real example where OP has trained this girl who is 5k cheaper and now they are in the position where they don't have to give OP flexible hours because they have already got someone to replace her if she doesn't come back. It sounds as if Becky was thinking with her heart but the new guy is doing what's best for the company - trying to keep the new girl doing the job at a cheaper cost to them.

I assume if this other woman wasn't doing the job anywhere near as well, they would have done anything to keep OP happy. Appreciate it's life, but essentially she's being forced out of her role because she was off having a baby.

I guess you have to do what's right for you, but this poster has an excellent point if you were to go back f/time...wait until they get rid of the new person then request flexible hours again with the view of leaving if they say no - I wonder if they would change their tune!

She isn't losing out...she can go back on her original contract which is the whole point and protection.

The OP wishes to change the contract to which the employer feels it isn't reasonable....if the OP disagrees then she could go to a tribunal and see what the courts say.

The only one forcing themselves out of a job is the OP.

sulphate

The problem is like some people have mentioned already is that paying the salaries of 2 people job sharing is more expensive than paying the salary of 1 person working full time. That's why flexible working applications may be declined if job sharing is required.

I've taken a look at our flexible working application procedure and one of the criteria that is needed to approve a request is as follows:
"There would be no unapproved additional cost of the new working arrangements on XXX central funds".

When I made my request to return to work flexibly on 3 days a week, I knew a job share wouldn't be considered for the above reasons, and the job I was doing couldn't be done part time. Luckily, the need for an additional person in another department had arisen and I was offered that on the days I wanted, otherwise I know my application would have been declined for similar reasons stated above.