Flexible working request rejected - appeal advice

scottishblondie

warby68 wrote: »

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?

The company policy does allow for an informal agreement with your line manager, which was initially what I wanted to do as I wasn't sure how well it would work out. My manager even agreed to it. However, when HR caught wind they said that this was not allowed, directly contradicting the policy.

scottishblondie

TELLIT01 wrote: »

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.

I'm actually one of "those people" that HR referred to, as for the past 8 years I have regularly worked well over the contracted hours without getting paid for it. I know that this would be a change for a minimum of 12 months, and I'm fine with that. I have been working basically the extra hours each day since I finished my mat leave anyway, so I'm not worried about it being too much for me.

scottishblondie

sportsarb wrote: »

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.

Thank you. I think you are probably right. I agree that if they gave me legitimate business reasons then that is their right, but this "policy" appears to have nothing to do with business reasons.

Savvy_Sue

scottishblondie wrote: »

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.

I wondered if that would be possible. And it's a win win for them, because you'll almost certainly continue to work the extra hours, but they can reduce their salary bill.

too much to hope that you're in a union, along with others working reduced hours? Sounds like something a group of you could challenge.

TELLIT01

If they have a policy of not permitting compressed hours, whether that is detailed in a staff handbook, employment contract, or not, I very much doubt that they will change their minds. Their argument seems to be that people working compressed hours are not as productive in the long term. If that is their argument, the refusal is based on business efficiency reasons and is difficult to argue is unreasonable.

nalimcc

TELLIT01 wrote: »

If they have a policy of not permitting compressed hours, whether that is detailed in a staff handbook, employment contract, or not, I very much doubt that they will change their minds. Their argument seems to be that people working compressed hours are not as productive in the long term. If that is their argument, the refusal is based on business efficiency reasons and is difficult to argue is unreasonable.

Their response is nothing to do with productivity and everything to do with 'we have staff that do extra hours for free and don't want them to get any ideas.' It's all framed as 'fairness' but that's essentially what it is.

I'd say they are being unreasonable but it would be simple enough for them to get things sorted from a legal perspective - they could easily argue it's a legitimate business reason even if that's not necessarily true.

CashlessCaruna

its all about Flexibility these days in the workplace and it is acknowledged that there may be benefits to both parties in allowing more flexible working.
Employers should do all that is reasonably practicable to facilitate flexible working, particularly if it means that you are able to accomodate and retain experienced staff. Often if a more flexible working pattern isn't agreed then the company ends up losing experienced and valued staff.

From here: https://www.gov.uk/flexible-working
Employers have a statutory duty to reasonably consider all flexible working requests as long as the employee has been working there 28 weeks.
A flexible working request can only be rejected on the following grounds:
extra costs that will damage the business
the work cannot be reorganised among other staff
people cannot be recruited to do the work
flexible working will affect quality and performance
the business will not be able to meet customer demand
there’s a lack of work to do during the proposed working times
the business is planning changes to the workforce

The reason given to you for rejection of your request does not sound reasonable and doesn't seem to tally with the above grounds. I would definitely appeal. In my experience often saying something like, could we try my proposed hours on a temporary basis (for 12 months or something like that) and then assess what disruptions if any are experienced before formal contract change, often works.
Go to your Trade Union, they will definitely be able to advise. Showing up to the appeal meeting with your Trade Union Rep will definitely be advantageous to your request.

TELLIT01

nalimcc wrote: »

I'd say they are being unreasonable but it would be simple enough for them to get things sorted from a legal perspective - they could easily argue it's a legitimate business reason even if that's not necessarily true.

Precisely my point. Choose your battles, and I don't think this is a battle the OP can win. As long as the employer can come up with a credible business case for refusal there isn't much can be done. Whether the business case given is the real reason for refusal will be impossible to prove.


For what it's worth, the majority of people I have worked with who changed to compressed hours regretted it eventually. Certainly not all, but a decent majority.

bhaisab

scottishblondie wrote: »

...

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.

OP,
how did things progress?

jobbingmusician

No one seems to have thought to ask....

Are the staff who are regularly working extra hours on NMW? If they are, this is a rather interesting response from the employer, isn't it.... an employment lawyer might well be interested.....