Any success stories from challenging rejection of flexible working requests?

kimwp

Everyone in my company is supposed to be back in the office a minimum number of days per week. But it's clear that most people are treating this as optional, which would make it very difficult to take action against an individual. 

MacPingu1986

EnPointe said:

LightFlare said:

EnPointe said:

LightFlare said:

The “traps” most people fall into when dealing with flexible working requests are:

a) you have a legal right to ASK

b) the company is under NO legal obligation to allow

c) people frame and word the request citing the benefits to THEM. Whereas the “art” is to word it to demonstrate that it will benefit the company (or not detriment them)

a manager / director with your attitude towards flexible working  will end up in one or both of two places 

1. missing  valuable  staff 
2. a courtroom  in front of an employment Judge 

curious as to which aspect of my response would lead to this

There is nothing (that I am aware of) in employment law that states an Employer must accept a flexible working request purely on the grounds that it benefits the employee in some way

enjoy your constructive dismissal claim 

EnPointe - can you follow up with what you think is the constructive dismissal risk here?

OP - LightFlare has pretty much covered it. From the employers perspective they can refuse and will only expose themselves to liability if they mess up by not generally dealing with the request in a reasonable manner (a low bar to meet) and they can refuse for any of the 8 grounds below, which again aren't too difficult for an employer to shoe-horn an objection into.

• the burden of additional costs;
• detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand;
• inability to reorganise work among existing staff;
• inability to recruit additional staff;
• detrimental impact on quality;
• detrimental impact on performance;
• insufficiency of work during the periods the employee proposes to work; or
• planned structural changes.

Clearly taking an employer to court (particularly for an easily defendable action from the companies perspective) will very much destroy the employer/employee relationship also. So, I would recommend going down the charm offensive route rather than any legal or complaint route. Sit down with your employer and explain how you enjoy the role, enjoy working for company (remind them of your appraisals etc...), explain how you'll make the flexible working work without any detriment to your role & performance etc... etc... appreciate they want to have a blanket policy but your circumstances make that difficult and hope you can win them round.

EnPointe

MacPingu1986 said:

EnPointe said:

LightFlare said:

EnPointe said:

LightFlare said:

The “traps” most people fall into when dealing with flexible working requests are:

a) you have a legal right to ASK

b) the company is under NO legal obligation to allow

c) people frame and word the request citing the benefits to THEM. Whereas the “art” is to word it to demonstrate that it will benefit the company (or not detriment them)

a manager / director with your attitude towards flexible working  will end up in one or both of two places 

1. missing  valuable  staff 
2. a courtroom  in front of an employment Judge 

curious as to which aspect of my response would lead to this

There is nothing (that I am aware of) in employment law that states an Employer must accept a flexible working request purely on the grounds that it benefits the employee in some way

enjoy your constructive dismissal claim 

EnPointe - can you follow up with what you think is the constructive dismissal risk here?

OP - LightFlare has pretty much covered it. From the employers perspective they can refuse and will only expose themselves to liability if they mess up by not generally dealing with the request in a reasonable manner (a low bar to meet) and they can refuse for any of the 8 grounds below, which again aren't too difficult for an employer to shoe-horn an objection into.

• the burden of additional costs;
• detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand;
• inability to reorganise work among existing staff;
• inability to recruit additional staff;
• detrimental impact on quality;
• detrimental impact on performance;
• insufficiency of work during the periods the employee proposes to work; or
• planned structural changes.

Clearly taking an employer to court (particularly for an easily defendable action from the companies perspective) will very much destroy the employer/employee relationship also. So, I would recommend going down the charm offensive route rather than any legal or complaint route. Sit down with your employer and explain how you enjoy the role, enjoy working for company (remind them of your appraisals etc...), explain how you'll make the flexible working work without any detriment to your role & performance etc... etc... appreciate they want to have a blanket policy but your circumstances make that difficult and hope you can win them round.

abudantly  clear you have little understanding of this topic  

1.  is basically  a moot point   for any  organisation that   WFH during lock down they have established a cost base around WFH  
2. If someone does not  handle  product  or  does not  have an expectation to deal with 'walk -in' customers  this is again an utter none starter  - especially as SIP telephony   is cheaper than  conventional fixed lines 
3. relates more to  time  critical handling of physicla product work 
4. irrelevant to the vastest majority of  flexible working  requests 
5. none starter  if people WFH over lockdown  and/or do not handle a physical product 
6.  would only be an valid reason to reject if the individual was subject to or  very  recently come off a PIP 
7. irrelevant for WFH  requests,  relevant  when  someone  proposes  to  move their  working hours to  an impractical time  e.g.   when  your last load of the day is collected at 2100 hours there is little point having someone work until 0200 unless  they are doing PI /stock take   (so if the indiviausl was unable / unwillignto change their role to incorporate that or you all ready had sufficient PI /inventory  team staffing that would be a reason *at that point* to reject )
8. no indication of this applying 

Pinneypen

LightFlare said:

The “traps” most people fall into when dealing with flexible working requests are:

a) you have a legal right to ASK

b) the company is under NO legal obligation to allow

c) people frame and word the request citing the benefits to THEM. Whereas the “art” is to word it to demonstrate that it will benefit the company (or not detriment them)

I did that, since my work is basically document stuff and calling people in other countries and I am more productive at home and have taken on extra work with the expectation of spending time on it and such, but they mostly don't care if I am more productive. They have a policy to push.

EnPointe said:

so the vast majority of your interactions are by  email, other 'messaging' technology or phone ? or is it a business where there are still  physical documents and/or products to be handled ?

By email, with my work phone more rarely. I don't tend to use physical documents much.

LightFlare said:

Just to clarify - I am 100% not anti flexible working or anti wfh.

There are many reasons why companies may allow these aspects and many reasons why they may also refuse them

Unless a contract specifically states something, then temporary measures (such as wfh during the pandemic) are just that - temporary 

In any event, it is reasonably easy for a company to change a contract if they follow correct procedures (The magnitude and impact of any change may be cause for dispute though)

I think more and more employees are gaining some sense of entitlement or perceiving rights where there are none and subsequently accuse any employer that chooses something not in alignment (but within the law) being bullies,toxic or authoritarian 

The law is generally quite extensive in manners dealing with employment but one thing it doesn’t include is hurt feelings

From what I understood the main reason they are pushing WFM is because they are concerned about property prices in the area and because they feel it was fine in the past and because other CEOs were pro it. I was hoping that I had some rights, not none, and that it wasn't entitled to hope for some success.

Undervalued said:

Of which less than 5% are won at tribunal (although obviously some others reach settlement beforehand).

As LightFlare has suggested it is remarkably easy for an employer who is so minded to find perfectly lawful ways of turning down such requests.

Do you have stats on that? If I have almost no chance of success regardless of the facts of the case, I would like to know.

It would be good to generally know if there was any legal way to challenge it that had any reasoable chance of success. I've done my best to diplomatically oppose it and raise why it benefits the company for me to do it, but it would also be nice to see if there was any way to nudge them further if they just say no.

I think my job is fairly secure since a bunch of their big clients like me and it's hard to hire for my role, so I don't think they're likely to fire me for raising the issue above their heads, but it would be nice to know if there was any real chance of success with anything.

Savvy_Sue

If you're facing a leadership team who don't believe you're working if they can't see you doing it, it's an uphill struggle. We lost staff who could have continued to WFH more days than not, just because the CEO was convinced that we worked better in the office.

This despite not having enough desk space for everyone in the office ... especially when we were still trying to keep a safe distance from each other.

Many of us couldn't work remotely every day, and some of us barely at all, but the 'everyone in' period was hugely frustrating. (You can't really glare properly at a computer and solve a problem with it over a Zoom call, which was my special gift.) 

LightFlare

@Pinneypen - one avenue that may (or may not) be available for advice is your Union IF you are a member.

It does sound as if you are in the position where any requests are likely to be refused.

From recollection, you are only allowed to submit one request every 12 months (I think)

Do you have annual appraisals ? You could raise the subject then and gently enquire what changes you could make to help the decision makers look more favourably on future requests.
If they give you a flat “no,not under any circumstances” then at least you know where you stand, which may help with decisions about your future with the company.

MacPingu1986

EnPointe said:

MacPingu1986 said:

EnPointe - can you follow up with what you think is the constructive dismissal risk here?

OP - LightFlare has pretty much covered it. From the employers perspective they can refuse and will only expose themselves to liability if they mess up by not generally dealing with the request in a reasonable manner (a low bar to meet) and they can refuse for any of the 8 grounds below, which again aren't too difficult for an employer to shoe-horn an objection into.

• the burden of additional costs;
• detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand;
• inability to reorganise work among existing staff;
• inability to recruit additional staff;
• detrimental impact on quality;
• detrimental impact on performance;
• insufficiency of work during the periods the employee proposes to work; or
• planned structural changes.

Clearly taking an employer to court (particularly for an easily defendable action from the companies perspective) will very much destroy the employer/employee relationship also. So, I would recommend going down the charm offensive route rather than any legal or complaint route. Sit down with your employer and explain how you enjoy the role, enjoy working for company (remind them of your appraisals etc...), explain how you'll make the flexible working work without any detriment to your role & performance etc... etc... appreciate they want to have a blanket policy but your circumstances make that difficult and hope you can win them round.

abudantly  clear you have little understanding of this topic  

1.  is basically  a moot point   for any  organisation that   WFH during lock down they have established a cost base around WFH  
2. If someone does not  handle  product  or  does not  have an expectation to deal with 'walk -in' customers  this is again an utter none starter  - especially as SIP telephony   is cheaper than  conventional fixed lines 
3. relates more to  time  critical handling of physicla product work 
4. irrelevant to the vastest majority of  flexible working  requests 
5. none starter  if people WFH over lockdown  and/or do not handle a physical product 
6.  would only be an valid reason to reject if the individual was subject to or  very  recently come off a PIP 
7. irrelevant for WFH  requests,  relevant  when  someone  proposes  to  move their  working hours to  an impractical time  e.g.   when  your last load of the day is collected at 2100 hours there is little point having someone work until 0200 unless  they are doing PI /stock take   (so if the indiviausl was unable / unwillignto change their role to incorporate that or you all ready had sufficient PI /inventory  team staffing that would be a reason *at that point* to reject )
8. no indication of this applying 

Hi En Pointe - I'm not a specialist employment lawyer, nor a specialist in flexible working requests, but I do work in role straddling various regulatory fields, that tends to give me a decent bit of background understanding (or know where to look for the answer) when these sorts of legal questions come up. Much earlier in my career I also worked for 6 months in a specialist employment law legal department.

It's *much* more nuanced and complicated that your suggesting - these grounds are absolutely not linked primarily, or restricted to front-line customer service or physical product roles - there's a decent amount of ACAS Guidance on this too - search "The right to request flexible working - An ACAS guide" for details and practical examples. The employer is allowed to use a ground in their subjective (not objective) opinion and doesn't have to give reasons, with no appeals process (beyond a full blown legal claim) - this makes it much easier to find a ground if the employer doesn't want to entertain home working.

Can you share what source you're relying on that the objection grounds are mostly restricted to front line CS / physical product delivery?

EnPointe

MacPingu1986 said:

Can you share what source you're relying on that the objection grounds are mostly restricted to front line CS / physical product delivery?

Quite simply that functions other than this were delivered more than satisfactorily  during the loackdown periods and  that   a lot of the arguements aginst  / things which were  dropped / de-emphasisied  during lockdown - e.g.  voice telephony  can , very easily and cheaply be surmounted.   

The reality is that  where a role went to 100% remote or 'remote first' during lockdown  the employer needs to prove  thata return to  the Office is needed , not to mention  the reality that for many businesses   estate considerations  are now such that they  cannot maintain a wholesale return to the office.

Physical product  handling or  person to person interaction  are the reasons for an individual / their role  to have to attend a place of work  / study 

NCC1701-A

EnPointe said:

MacPingu1986 said:

Can you share what source you're relying on that the objection grounds are mostly restricted to front line CS / physical product delivery?

Quite simply that functions other than this were delivered more than satisfactorily  during the loackdown periods and  that   a lot of the arguements aginst  / things which were  dropped / de-emphasisied  during lockdown - e.g.  voice telephony  can , very easily and cheaply be surmounted.   

The reality is that  where a role went to 100% remote or 'remote first' during lockdown  the employer needs to prove  thata return to  the Office is needed , not to mention  the reality that for many businesses   estate considerations  are now such that they  cannot maintain a wholesale return to the office.

Physical product  handling or  person to person interaction  are the reasons for an individual / their role  to have to attend a place of work  / study 

I think this is the fundamental flaw in your understanding of employment law. The employer is under no such obligation. It is for the claimant to prove their case. Of course, if you can provide some case law references to back up your opinions, I will yield.

In addition, your logic concerning what applied during lockdown must still be valid post lockdown is nonsensical, if it were true, every business would be in a constant state of equilibrium never having to change anything ever.

robatwork

This thread is a tremendous example of "doubling down". Please do continue your preposterous man-in-the-pub employment law bunkum.