Change of Workplace

Duncan_Barrett

Hi... Raising an issue on behalf of my partner.

The Problem,
My partner works for a charity that has 2 shops in 2 towns about 30 minutes driving time apart (I'll call them shop A & shop
Her contract states that she will be working in both shops.
The problem being that although she lives near shop A & another employee lives near shop B she is expected to travel to shop B whilst the other employee is expected to travel to shop A. This to me makes no sense at all.
She's not happy traveling when unnecessary especially in winter (far north of Scotland, so driving in dark or very low winter sun on country roads)
On top of that she gets no travelling expenses (incidentally the employee travelling from B to A gets free transport in one of the works vans as the driver gets to take the van home & he works near shop A at the warehouse).
She has tried to talk to the boss about the situation but the boss seems unmovable on the situation, even suggesting that if she's not happy driving to take public transport (rural area, twice the travelling time & infrequent so including waiting time more like 3 times the travelling time) or get me, her partner to drive her (twice the number of journeys).
Incidentally another employee near A was asked to travel to B but objected due to the need for him to use public transport & his objection was accepted.

Any advice on how to resolve this situation or is it just a case of looking for another job?

TELLIT01

Assuming that the work is broadly the same in each shop it makes absolutely no sense that both parties have to travel when an application of common sense could resolve the matter.
Unfortunately it would seem that the manager is totally lacking in that area. I don't know what the reaction would be if both she and the other employee simply told the boss that they were not willing to travel each day as they have shops local to them and do the same work.
I had a similar type of situation with management lacking common sense. I had 3 staff and needed to ensure there was cover from 8am to 6pm. It suited one person to start at 8, another to start at 9 and the third to start at 10 so that's what we did, and it worked very well. The staff worked amongst themselves and adjusted their times to cover leave, sickness etc. The system had been in place for many months when my manager, who didn't work on our site, discovered what we did. He tried to insist that we introduced rotation but we managed to hold out against that. When I left, he forced his change in immediately, resulting in 3 p***** off staff who all left within 6 months.

spadoosh

I made different assumptions.

I assumed the OP wasnt fully included in all the details. Firstly it sounds like the two employees are not the same job roles. The op suggests (to me) one is a delivery driver of sorts. Where as the partner is not. One works in a shop the other works in a warehouse. No suggestion that the other employee is up for moving/changing jobs either.

Making more assumptions id guess most charity shops run with few staff. Having a few in a region with flexibility in their contract would be massively helpful for the business should someone be sick or go on holiday, particularly if you have a situation where a single employee is managing a shop. Your choice would be get OP's partner or close for the day.

Getting a specific contract stating youll help out when needed would be nice but the first time it would be used theres a good chance the employee will not be as flexible as they said they where (like in this case when they agreed to work at both shops when they agreed to take the job, now they have to do it its become less reasonable).

Always amazes me with staff the number that agree to do anything and everything then a few weeks later start looking for contractual get outs because they never wanted to do what was offered. Be honest. If the jobs not going to fit to you and you want it to do, youre not going to force someone to do it save everyone the time and just find a job that you are willing to do.

OP you dont say how long this has been going on for, are the changes recent or has it always been the case?

ReadingTim

It may make no sense for the employee, but it makes perfect sense for the employer, who need staff who are contracted to work in both locations according to the needs of the business. If her contract said she could only work in shop A and there was a need for someone on shop B, your partner couldn't go. Does this make good business sense, or any sense at all? No.

Therefore, in the eyes of the employer, there's no situation to resolve. Furthermore, it's not their problem that she doesn't like driving in winter, and it's not really any of her business how other members of staff manage their route in to work - getting a lift in a company van as a favour to a friend by the drive to a workmate is hardly a company perk of "free transport" either.

A good understanding manager may try and minimise times when someone living near shop A has to work in shop B at the same time as someone living near shop B has to work in shop A, but there's no obligation to; and often, trying to do someone a favour backfires when they get used to it, and object to being told they'll do as their contract states, not whatever cushy "arrangement" they've got comfortable with.


But in short, sometimes what makes sense for the employee doesn't make sense for the employer - often it's quite the opposite, so don't expect change, or any obligation to even discuss. If you don't like it, leave, but don't expect too many other employers to take too much of a different view in terms of conflicting priorities - it's called capitalism.

Duncan_Barrett

Just to clarify, both members of staff do exactly the same job, the mention of the van driver is included as he just provides free transport for the employee travelling from B to A & this travel issue only arrises when both are rota'd on the same day (usually 2 out of the three days worked per week), otherwise she will get to work at A (none of the other staff are expected to swap over)

She is more than willing to be flexible on location if & when needed but when there is no need it makes no sense whatsoever.

sangie595

Duncan_Barrett wrote: »

when there is no need it makes no sense whatsoever.

There is a need. The employer tells her where she works. What makes sense to her or you is irrelevant. That is the end of the discussion about "need".

spadoosh

Duncan_Barrett wrote: »

Just to clarify, both members of staff do exactly the same job, the mention of the van driver is included as he just provides free transport for the employee travelling from B to A & this travel issue only arrises when both are rota'd on the same day (usually 2 out of the three days worked per week), otherwise she will get to work at A (none of the other staff are expected to swap over)

She is more than willing to be flexible on location if & when needed but when there is no need it makes no sense whatsoever.

Shes not though is she? Shes deciding the need. The manager needs her to be available to work at both stores which theyve said. You and your partner are saying she doesnt. That seems the complete opposite of being 'willing to be flexible on location if & when needed'. That flexibility is needed now and that need is determined by her manager.


Im not tryin gto say your partner is wrong for wnating to work at one store, or that the manager is right with their reasoning, i couldnt possibly know. What i am saying is the person with the authority to do anything has deemed that your partner needs to be available to work at both stores. You can try and get them to see your way of thinking, thats a negotiation. But you cant force them to. If they dont change their mind your at like it or lump it.

gettingtheresometime

It would also be interesting to know whether the van driver is insured, to what is effectively, a passenger.


The only way I could see the manager allowing the two members of staff to swop sites is if the two members of staff jointly approached him/her together with a plan if either is off on holiday or sick.


But otherwise I'd agree that this is one of those tough luck situations

Sarastro

Duncan_Barrett wrote: »

Any advice on how to resolve this situation or is it just a case of looking for another job?

Resolve what, exactly? The boss isn't asking anything unreasonable; if they want people to work in both places, that's it and all about it. I mean what 'situation' are you talking about? If your partner doesn't like travelling, fine, get another job. That's what the employer wants and they are offering money for some to do it.. take it or leave it.

Duncan_Barrett

She's left it & got another job now.