Flexible working request rejected - appeal advice

scottishblondie

A few weeks ago I sent a request to my employer for flexible working following their procedure. I requested compressed hours, 37.5 hours per week over 4.5 days rather than 5, and outlined my proposed working hours. I also addressed any concerns that they might have had about my absence from the office one afternoon a week, and noted on the form that I was making this request due to childcare requirements. It should be noted that since I returned from maternity leave earlier this year I've been using my annual leave to take one afternoon off per week with no adverse effects to my team or the company in general.

I finally had a meeting with HR yesterday morning and was told that they have a policy against allowing compressed hours, and so would be rejecting my request. Their reasoning is that people put in extra hours (unpaid) every day but don't get an afternoon off, so it would be unfair to allow me to have that working pattern.

This really blindsided me (and my manager, who was happy with my proposal) as HR have known what I was planning to request since the start of this year and never mentioned any pre-existing policy against compressed hours. Their flexible working policy also makes no mention of this. I had expected the meeting yesterday to be a quick formality to tell me that it was approved.

I've read the guidance on flexible working on gov.uk and from ACAS, and as far as I can make out their reasoning does not fall under one of the business reasons for rejecting my application. My employer's policy sets out the same possible reasons for rejection.

https://www.gov.uk/flexible-working/after-the-application

I am, of course, biased on this and so would like some outside advice about whether or not my employer is behaving in a reasonable and legal fashion here, and whether I have any grounds to appeal this decision. Thanks.

sportsarb

When you say, they say, that there is a policy against allowing compressed hours are you saying that they are inclined to turn down requests? Or is there actually a policy saying that they don't allow compressed working patterns?

1. the business will not be able to meet customer demand
2. there’s a lack of work to do during the proposed working times

Are either of those two correct?

They would on the face of it appear to be the most concerning. I don't see how it would cost them significantly more if your role is not in dealing with the public.

scottishblondie

sportsarb wrote: »

When you say, they say, that there is a policy against allowing compressed hours are you saying that they are inclined to turn down requests? Or is there actually a policy saying that they don't allow compressed working patterns?

1. the business will not be able to meet customer demand
2. there’s a lack of work to do during the proposed working times

Are either of those two correct?

They would on the face of it appear to be the most concerning. I don't see how it would cost them significantly more if your role is not in dealing with the public.

She said it was a policy that they do not allow it, but it is not a policy that is published anywhere on the HR portal. So by "policy" I'm understanding that it is some unwritten rule.

Neither of those points apply to me - I work in software development in a non-customer facing role. My team has a steady flow of work at all times, so I would not be spending the extra hour a day sitting about doing nothing.

Takeaway_Addict

scottishblondie wrote: »

A few weeks ago I sent a request to my employer for flexible working following their procedure. I requested compressed hours, 37.5 hours per week over 4.5 days rather than 5, and outlined my proposed working hours. I also addressed any concerns that they might have had about my absence from the office one afternoon a week, and noted on the form that I was making this request due to childcare requirements. It should be noted that since I returned from maternity leave earlier this year I've been using my annual leave to take one afternoon off per week with no adverse effects to my team or the company in general.

I finally had a meeting with HR yesterday morning and was told that they have a policy against allowing compressed hours, and so would be rejecting my request. Their reasoning is that people put in extra hours (unpaid) every day but don't get an afternoon off, so it would be unfair to allow me to have that working pattern.

This really blindsided me (and my manager, who was happy with my proposal) as HR have known what I was planning to request since the start of this year and never mentioned any pre-existing policy against compressed hours. Their flexible working policy also makes no mention of this. I had expected the meeting yesterday to be a quick formality to tell me that it was approved.

I've read the guidance on flexible working on gov.uk and from ACAS, and as far as I can make out their reasoning does not fall under one of the business reasons for rejecting my application. My employer's policy sets out the same possible reasons for rejection.

https://www.gov.uk/flexible-working/after-the-application

I am, of course, biased on this and so would like some outside advice about whether or not my employer is behaving in a reasonable and legal fashion here, and whether I have any grounds to appeal this decision. Thanks.

They are enjoying staff working more hours than legally contracted for. They do not want to effectively make the point that actually it isn't needed by allowing you to do your contracted hours in a shortened time.

The reasons for refusing are IMO relatively easy to back up though

System

I understand the employer in this instance. I would like a compressed week, 12 hours a day for four days would be ace. However, me not being present is a problem. The phones aren't covered, the email isn't been monitored. It's more than just your time, it's your time at the appropriate time for the business.

warby68

Compressed hours were handled warily by management when they first became a thing for my employer (this was a department of c 90 staff in a large PLC)

The reason was precedent and fairness as it was seen as something an awful lot of staff would want to do and that they could not accommodate endless requests for the same time so it was unfair to give it to the first who happened to ask. They then had a flexible working drive and it was 'managed' by inviting everyone to apply for some flexible working and divvying it up. After that, individual requests were again refused for some time until another wave of requests was invited. It felt a bit off as it didn't really recognise individual needs at any one time, but we had 'by the book' HR policies so I expect it was all correct.

This could be a similar 'open the floodgates' view.

warby68

In my case, my request (not compressed hours but some other flexibility) was accommodated 'informally' ie agreed by my line manager for the current year but subject to review thereafter. This informal arrangement was reviewed and tweaked for many years but I never submitted a formal request.

Is there scope for something like that?

sportsarb

scottishblondie wrote: »

She said it was a policy that they do not allow it, but it is not a policy that is published anywhere on the HR portal. So by "policy" I'm understanding that it is some unwritten rule.

Neither of those points apply to me - I work in software development in a non-customer facing role. My team has a steady flow of work at all times, so I would not be spending the extra hour a day sitting about doing nothing.

In that case their position does seem unnecessarily restrictive. They should give you a formal decision though, if they have given a formal decision, and their unwritten rule forms part of the formal decision, I would definitely call them out on it as part of the appeal explaining again how it doesn’t place any extra burden on anyone.

At the end of the day, if they can cite legitimate business reasons and show that there’s good reason not to allow it, and they’re applying the policy the same to everyone, they are allowed to turn it down.

Still think they’re doing it just because they’re scared it will lead to further applications etc rather than on a current legitimate reason.

TELLIT01

Anybody can request flexible working, but the company can turn down the request on the basis of business need or, as in this case, because it goes against company policy.
There is a difference between an employee occasionally working longer than their contracted hours, and somebody having to work longer hours every day as would be the case with compressed hours.
I accept that every case is different, but a woman who works with my wife requested compressed hours due to childcare commitments, but asked to change back to her previous working pattern within a few months because she found the longer working day exhausting. She was fortunate in that the company allowed her to return to her previous pattern as there is no requirement for them to do so.

scottishblondie

andydownes123 wrote: »

I understand the employer in this instance. I would like a compressed week, 12 hours a day for four days would be ace. However, me not being present is a problem. The phones aren't covered, the email isn't been monitored. It's more than just your time, it's your time at the appropriate time for the business.

I appreciate your perspective but that is not what they said the reasoning was. The only reason presented to me is the one I gave above.

Me not being present is not a problem in this case. I don't even have a phone to answer, and my emails are never urgent enough that one afternoon would matter. Also, there are plenty of people in my office, even on my team, who work reduced hours and so are not present. They actually offered me to work 4.5 days instead of compressed hours which to me further suggests that my absence is not an issue at all.

scottishblondie

warby68 wrote: »

Compressed hours were handled warily by management when they first became a thing for my employer (this was a department of c 90 staff in a large PLC)

The reason was precedent and fairness as it was seen as something an awful lot of staff would want to do and that they could not accommodate endless requests for the same time so it was unfair to give it to the first who happened to ask. They then had a flexible working drive and it was 'managed' by inviting everyone to apply for some flexible working and divvying it up. After that, individual requests were again refused for some time until another wave of requests was invited. It felt a bit off as it didn't really recognise individual needs at any one time, but we had 'by the book' HR policies so I expect it was all correct.

This could be a similar 'open the floodgates' view.

TBH I can't see most people in my office being interested in compressed hours. I've discussed it with a number of colleagues (everyone asks if you're back full time when you come off mat leave!) and all of them reckoned I was mad wanting to extend the workday any further. But I can see how management might view it differently.