Being asked to switch to full time - what if I say no?

[wearenotinkansas]

I have been working part time since I started this job 3 years ago. I have been asked, for the 3rd time, to move to full time hours.

I am being told that some KPIs are not being met. The company thinks this is due to my part time hours.

I was told verbally that the Company wasn't saying I would be made redundant if I refused to move to full time. But they have declined to confirm that in writing.

Has anyone been through this? Do you have any advice - or just support! I really would rather not have to leave this job.

[manchestermummy]

I may be in a similar situation soon. My manager is desparate for me to up my hours, and indeed I would quite like more too as dc2 starts school in September 2015, and rather than working at home on my non-working days without payment, I may as well get paid . Plus I would be bored at home.

However, I have said from the outset what I would be willing to do hours-wise. I don't want full-time, just under, to allow me to pick up the dc at the 'normal' time a couple of times a week.

So, could you reach a compromise? A couple of longer days? An extra half day maybe? It seems reasonable that there may be a business case for needing more of your hours if KPIs aren't being met, but I would have thought that you should be able to come up with something. A job share, perhaps?

[wearenotinkansas]

Hi, I've already gone up from 3 days to 3.5 days at their request. I really don't want to do anymore.

I've suggested a job share and will do so again, but they don't want to increase headcount. I think they will try and make me redundant, so am busy job hunting. Suspect it may all end messily... but hey ho. Who wants a quiet life!

[maggiethemagpie]

I went through this recently, I was doing a 3 day role which went full time. It was a redundancy situation, as there were valid business reasons why the job could no longer be done full time. I counter-proposed a job share, but it would never have worked, as the job is really too complex to job share, so I went full time in the end.

You may have to choose between full time work and redundancy I'm afraid.

[onedev]

I have sympathy for you but feel for them too as it sounds like the role really is a full time one - I'd suggest job share again but if I were you, I'd be looking fir another job. Sorry.

[ThePinkOcelot]

This might seem like a stupid question, but how can you be made redundant because you won't go full time? I thought it was the job that was redundant, ie, that the job is no longer available, not that the occupant of that role is unable/doesn't want to do it full time.

[onedev]

I'd imagine they'll employ a full time person & the part time role will be redundant.

[maggiethemagpie]

Pink Ocelot - if the job changes by more than a certain amount (in my organisation 25% ) then it is deemed that the old job no longer exists therefore redundancy applies. So a 3 day to 5 day job would meet this criteria. This is nothing to do with the job holder, it's to do with whether or not the original role is changing. In my situation, they wanted five day cover to meet customer demand, so a three day job was no longer in line with business needs.

[InfinitySeven]

Yes, it's as Maggie says. Where I work, it's an 8% change in job description that cannot be met by the current employee. For DP, it's 5%.

They won't look at the OP. It does sound like the job needs to be full-time, so they've met their legal and moral obligations by offering it to the OP as a full-time vacancy. If she could present someone just as good who could work the days she doesn't want too, and a very good system for ensuing a good handover each week, then she could offer that as a counter offer. Otherwise, it sounds like the part-time position will be redundant, replaced with a full-time one, which the OP doesn't want.

In short, they've pretty much said that the part-time job is redundant, so they've given OP first refusal of the full-time replacement. If she doesn't want that, they are entitled to look elsewhere.

OP - I wouldn't take anything that they won't put in writing as being true. Have you looked to see if there are other part-time jobs that you could do instead? I think I'd agree to trial full-time if there aren't any comparable jobs being advertised.

[flowery]

I wouldn't advise redundancy in that situation. Redundancy is where the need for that type of work is diminished or removed, not increased.

In the past making a part time person redundant to employ a full time person used to be the way to go, but current thinking is that that would be risky in terms of justifying it as a redundancy, and therefore I would consider this as an attempt to vary terms and conditions.

[wearenotinkansas]

Thanks everyone. I've taken advice and it looks as though I would have a good claim for sex discrimination if they make me redundant ( pretty much for the reasons flowery has said). The role really can be done part time, and I am pretty confident that making me full time wouldn't make any difference to achieving the KPIs - and I've suggested other changes to them that they could make which would be more likely to be effective.

I hope I can stay but we will see. I'll let you know what happens.

[wearenotinkansas]

an update - in case anyone is still following. I put together a long list of reasons why my part time working wasn't the problem, how much it would cost to outsource the work and my case for staying part time (child care, doing all school/nursery runs etc) and they've decided to employ someone else to "support me".

it might be that they are getting someone else up to speed so they can give me the boot but I reckon it's given me at least a 6 month reprieve....

[onedev]

Well done! Pleased that you've got a resolution & I would take them at their word - work as best you can with your support person & show them how well having 2 people there makes things much better. Good luck.

[wearenotinkansas]

Thanks . I appreciate the support.