Angry my manager has taken away WFH perk?

No wonder the rest of the team dislike him and you do/did.

He is probably worried they will think you are getting even more preferential treatment and it will cause him even more grief.

Oh sorry, you said they will not they already had - HR will side with him as he’s arguing it’s business needs - but I guess it amounts to the same thing.

Then he's not self-employed.

He's an employee of an umbrella company (likely PSR) as he will be deemed inside IR35 as per off-payroll hires.

Or he's an employee of a consultancy.

HMRC will not touch Schedule D contractors.

I think you don't understand employment contracts in detail or in spirit.

His, or yours.

OP has gone into all this, about a recent inspection, detriment to the business, and all that side of things which HR has backed the manager up on. She's also said she doesn't know what this side-bar argument is about and has resolved the matter with the manager in a satisfactory way for them both, so I'm not sure why it's going on. Nor why I'm reading it tbh, but carry on it you're enjoying arguing the toss...

@Rosscameasdoodyhe absolutely does need to give a statutory reason as to why she can no longer work from home on Fridays when she did that previously. There is only 8 reasons why he can decline this.

You don’t have to give a reason for your request. They have to give a reason for the refusal.

The wfh half day isn’t in the contract - it was a private arrangement between herself and her manager. OP asked for reduced hours so of course they’re going to look at the wfh before reducing further the hours spent in the office.

He doesn’t need to give a statutory reason. The employer is under no obligation to accommodate OP’s request if it hampers the running of the business - which is why her manager has offered an alternative. She has applied to reduce her hours. Of course the employer is going to look at stopping her WFH hours rather than further reducing the time she spends in the office. All he has to show is that the hours OP has requested are not convenient to the operational needs of the business. OP opened the door to the change. If she’s not happy with it she can always withdraw the request and go back to the previous arrangement.

Custom and practice doesn’t apply. OP herself has opened the door to her working hours being changed because she has applied to reduce her hours. The employer is well within their rights to refuse if the reduced hours cause operational problems, and to provide an alternative, which is what they have done here. Equally, OP is within her rights to withdraw the request and stick to the previous arrangements.

What statutory reason has he given you for declining Fridays ?

After 6 years, a perk is no longer a perk and can be seen as legally binding and to take it off could be seen as a change in contract. Get legal advice and Google ‘Custom and practice’.

Surely by starting earlier you still have to rush dc to breakfast club, so not sure what that would gain. Your wfh half day was never a “perk”. Do they need you on site Tues-Thurs or could you wfh for any of that? Are others in office ft?

I think this is an excellent example of why we have employment contracts. Too many times I have seen managers, often well-intended, promise additional flexibility/over-time/promotion prospects if a team member doesn’t take another job and, without exception, these perks (which often contravene company policy anyway) fall away after a few months once the alternative prospect is no longer available and their panic averted.

I’m really sorry OP and hope you are able to maintain your previous working practice but next time take the job with benefits in writing and not the one with benefits in your manager’s promises. That and kick up a stink with HR if you don’t think it will make your position even worse.

I'm not sure I'm reading it properly, so to be clear....
You asked to reduce your hours which would mean coming in late and leaving early your 3 in office days and working your normal WFH 4 hours on Friday. He says it doesn't suit for you to be coming late and leaving early but has offered to go back to your original contracted hours of t/w/th and not doing the extra Friday hours you d taken on since.
If it's us the case it's nothing to do with perks being taken away while on maternity, you requested the reduction of hours and he's given you the option that suit the c

Although I'm now unclear what you actually asked for 😅

Surely her ideal would be the hours that she asked for:

8:30 - 3:30
8:30 - 2:30
8:30 - 4:30
9 - 11:30 (wfh)

But that didn't work for the co - if she'd reduced her office hours Tues-Thurs like that, they wanted her in the office on Fri too. At least with the arrangement they've now come to, she gets the full Friday off.

So what would your ideal arrangement be? I haven't been able to work this out?

I went all the way to ACAS with my issue regarding change of conditions when I was on maternity leave. Maternity action are also helpful

It ddidn't get to tribunal as I was able to submit a formal grievance, then appeal the change and won.

Are you in a union?

This is also my interpretation

But as I correctly stated, it was always still possible, even without her asking to change her contract, that wfh might be removed and legally so. It could have been, even if deemed to be contractual due to custom and practice; and the only way to test it if enforced would have been a tribunal. Unfortunatelt "fire and hire" has become much more commonly used recently, even though the power was always there, and a number of employers have used it to change such terms. Few people are prepared to risk their entire employment over wfh for a few hours.

I am sure that you will be aware that what is "fair" and what is "fair in law" are vastly different things.