appeal advice - Flexible working request rejected

warby68

OP, its a shame you weren't guided away from making this request as you now can't make another for 12m (assuming the request was formal)

The business objection is glaringly obvious.

I think you urgently (April is coming round fast) need to revisit plans for work and childcare. The request was quite unrealistic and the fact you don't yet trust your partner with your child both say you have a number of issues to resolve if you are going to keep working.

Unless we have misunderstood but it doesn't seem so.

theoretica

To appeal you would need to show how agreeing would be no worse for the business than not agreeing, or even that it would be better - not about how it would be better for you. I agree with other posters that it would be very hard to persuade the business that your proposed arrangement would work well for them.

bhaisab

apologies, for not giving full info.

I want to work from home but with support of my MIL, who will look after the baby, currently 9 months.

The team is made of 6, officially we all have equal roles and responsibilities but 3 (inc me) are considered the workhorses, and 3 are less productive and more bodies in office.

This request has been formally rejected.
reasons provided in writing: (my thoughts in red)
1. affect customer demand
I wont be in office to take calls from customers and provide the expected service.
or liaise with colleagues or attend unplanned meetings.
(During pregnancy WFH I did take less general phone calls, but I covered more email inquiries, and customers had access to my work mobile number to make contact. true that I couldn't liaise in person or attend meetings or discussions. but previously I would be allowed access by a conference call or kept up to date via email or meetings arranged in advance)
2. affect business/office structure
on my return they plan to move a team member to another role so want me in office to cover his work and a body in the office
(they want to move him because he doesn't do much work and on my return he wouldn't have any work to do, so they have found him another role. the remainder of the team can contribute to cover, but I accept that there would be on less body in office)
3. my performance and quality
if at home with baby then wont be able to concentrate on my work
(I explained in the request that my mother-in-law would be at home with me and she would provide the main care, I would be available for breast feeding and for any periods of unrest, I explained that at the moment that is less than an instance per 2 hours, so would be as disruptive as going for a brew or cig break. I am known in office for not engaging in office banter/conversations and I don't take unnecessary breaks.)

Only alternative solution HR suggested is to take an unpaid career break for 6 months, then come back full time.
I thought HR and manager would give a counter offer of WFH on a short period.
or if WFH not accepted then I was hoping that they would say, come back on a part time basis or reduced hours per day.

I have 5 days to respond to appeal decision.
Looks like they have a number of business reasons.
Any tips to help?

My main argument would be that I've already been given an opportunity (and a colleague) to work from home so give chance again. To give me a trial period which can be reviewed on my performance and effect on business. Also without this I wouldn't be able to work so I would lose employment and they would lose a valuable employee. Whilst I was on pregnancy WFH, was the only period where all emails responded to and the inbox was always cleared by closing time, so an actual benefit to the business.

Mrsn

I’m sorry but none of your points that you have raised will be sufficient enough to deem this a valid reason for flexible working.

They have already said there will be less members of staff available to them which they obviously feel is important to them. They could have just given you this reason alone and it would still be an acceptable response in the eyes of the law.

I’m assuming part of your job role/description does specify that you may need to attend urgent meetings etc to meet customer demand. Again what you are proposing isn’t meeting the role you have been employed for. Your employer wishes for you to provide the services and requests that they are paying you for.

I must sound unsympathetic I’m really not. I have 2 children and no family support other than my husband and we have to juggle our jobs along with childcare commitments, it’s hard but we and many other working families do this day in day out so I do understand especially with this being your 1st baby how hard this must be feeling for you at the moment.

Please If you are planning on appealing this decision do not mention what other work colleagues have been offered/given in the past. It isn’t relevant at all to the request that you have put in and will hold no weight to the argument you feel you have.

I must admit the idea of them “countering your offer” seems unlikely. They want you there full time and office based so this would have been wishful thinking at best.

TBagpuss

It sounds as though their reasons are valid and I am struggling to see how your responses would change that.

Specifically :

1. affect customer demand
I wont be in office to take calls from customers and provide the expected service.
or liaise with colleagues or attend unplanned meetings.
(During pregnancy WFH I did take less general phone calls, but I covered more email inquiries, and customers had access to my work mobile number to make contact. true that I couldn't liaise in person or attend meetings or discussions. but previously I would be allowed access by a conference call or kept up to date via email or meetings arranged in advance)

It sounds as though you weren't able to do the full range of work needed for the role and having given you the opportunity before (when there were also others available who won't now be there) they have found that it didn't work well.
It looks like a good business reason based on the need for full coverage and non-availability of others to provide cover

[

B]2. affect business/office structure[/B]
on my return they plan to move a team member to another role so want me in office to cover his work and a body in the office
(they want to move him because he doesn't do much work and on my return he wouldn't have any work to do, so they have found him another role. the remainder of the team can contribute to cover, but I accept that there would be on less body in office)

The reason for moving him isn't really relevant, unless you were arguing that they were moving him primarily in order to give them an excuse to refuse your request. IF his performance is poor that sounds like a good reason to move him, but it does mean that there is less coverage in your department and more need to have you there in person. also, although you clearly don't have a high opinion of the level of work he was doing, his departure will probably mean more work for those remaining, which does mean that your other coworkers are likely to have a bit less spare capacity to cover for you.

3. my performance and quality
if at home with baby then wont be able to concentrate on my work
(I explained in the request that my mother-in-law would be at home with me and she would provide the main care, I would be available for breast feeding and for any periods of unrest, I explained that at the moment that is less than an instance per 2 hours, so would be as disruptive as going for a brew or cig break. I am known in office for not engaging in office banter/conversations and I don't take unnecessary breaks.

This seems a very strong reason - you've said that you aren't comfortable leaving your baby with your partner or family, and that you are still breastfeeding - it's not difficult to see why that would raise significant concerns.
Many companies have WFH policies which explicitly recognise that caring for a child is work and so require that you not have children at home during working hours, or that you have full time child care available. Given that your proposals seem to be that you will still be doing some of the child care, even if your plan is that your MIL will also be there, I can see why they would have concerns.
Also, I think in most cases, dealing with feeding or calming a baby are things which are likely to be more time consuming than a cigarette break, and unlike a break, not really things which you can cut out, or delay, if a more urgent work-related task needs doing.
Also, you would presumably still be having your own normal breaks for tea / using the loo etc, so on the face of it you would be potentially taking more breaks than if you were in the office, and with less control over timing so greater risk of being unavailable for client calls / meetings etc


Your employer doesn't have to come back with a counter offer. They either approve or reject your request.

You don't have the right to make a further request for another 12 months, but you could informally ask whether they would be willing to compromise at all. However, i think that given the reasons they have given for turning don the request, all of which would also apply if you were only looking to WFH once a week, you would probably have an uphill struggle to convince them t is in the business's interests to agree.
I do understand that it is difficult to leave your baby - might it be possible to discuss with your partner, and then with your employer, whether there is any scope for reducing your hours to part time so that you can be at home a bit more (perhaps with your partner doing the same so that your baby is being cared for by one of you, for the majority of the time, rather than by family or other carers?

Could MIL meet you during your lunch break so that you get to spend a bit of time with the baby in the middle of the day, at least a couple of times a week?

warby68

I'm not unsympathetic and have been there myself and undertook a variety of working patterns over the years.

However, it has always been made perfectly clear by my employer that adequate childcare had to be in place for the full extent of your working hours so you give work its due priority at those times.

I don't think you are really getting that yet - even with MIL in attendance it is perfectly clear what will happen if baby cries at the same time as the phone rings. It will be the job that comes second (we're hard wired that way after all)

Unfortunately the other business reasons sound quite strong too and really do seem to suggest you wouldn't fulfil all parts of the role and perhaps more importantly be seen to be treated the same as other team members. The other 2 reasons though may allow some scope for partial flexibility if you get your head around childcare.

Have you looked into parental leave as a way of extending your leave - I'm out of touch with the eligibility criteria but it does give 4 weeks per year (unpaid of course)

Its tough and with your first child especially your perspective can get a little skewed but I think you have to be realistic about your prospects here.

gettingtheresometime

OP

Can I ask why you're not comfortable with someone else looking after your baby?

I appreciate that in an ideal world babies would be looked after by a parent but life is rarely ideal.

Takeaway_Addict

bhaisab wrote: »

My main argument would be that I've already been given an opportunity (and a colleague) to work from home so give chance again. To give me a trial period which can be reviewed on my performance and effect on business. Also without this I wouldn't be able to work so I would lose employment and they would lose a valuable employee. Whilst I was on pregnancy WFH, was the only period where all emails responded to and the inbox was always cleared by closing time, so an actual benefit to the business.

The problem with referring to before you had birth is that it was clearly always a temporary solution that the company would be able to make do on. They clearly don't see it as a suitable long term solution.

Appeal but you may have to accept that you need to negotiate and perhaps do a day or two at the office each week to get a day or two at home

Undervalued

Mrsn wrote: »

I’m sorry but none of your points that you have raised will be sufficient enough to deem this a valid reason for flexible working.

They have already said there will be less members of staff available to them which they obviously feel is important to them. They could have just given you this reason alone and it would still be an acceptable response in the eyes of the law.

I’m assuming part of your job role/description does specify that you may need to attend urgent meetings etc to meet customer demand. Again what you are proposing isn’t meeting the role you have been employed for. Your employer wishes for you to provide the services and requests that they are paying you for.

I must sound unsympathetic I’m really not. I have 2 children and no family support other than my husband and we have to juggle our jobs along with childcare commitments, it’s hard but we and many other working families do this day in day out so I do understand especially with this being your 1st baby how hard this must be feeling for you at the moment.

Please If you are planning on appealing this decision do not mention what other work colleagues have been offered/given in the past. It isn’t relevant at all to the request that you have put in and will hold no weight to the argument you feel you have.

I must admit the idea of them “countering your offer” seems unlikely. They want you there full time and office based so this would have been wishful thinking at best.

I totally agree with every word you have written.

OP, I have to say that there are many valid reasons why your employer can refuse your request and as has been said they are not obliged to make a "counter offer". In fact they do not have to consider a modified request for, if memory serves me correctly, a year.

Obviously a firm may choose to allow flexible working, even when they could quite lawfully refuse. In certain cases an employee may be so valuable to them that some of the employee's time, on the employee's terms may be judged better than nothing. However these are business judgements in particular cases and are not legal entitlements.

You can of course try to persuade them to be more flexible. However if that fails your only options are to continue with your job on its current terms or take the matter to an employment tribunal. Based on what you have written here I think your chances of winning are remote.

Sorry.

theoretica

If you want part time working temporarily then discuss it with your bosses - why should they raise it?

Did you discuss your WFH request with them in advance? In my work we usually have an informal discussion before any formal request goes in - gives scope to work out something that is most likely to be accepted, but still leaves the route of the formal application open even if the manager has indicated it is unlikely to be accepted.