Angry my manager has taken away WFH perk?

Well, yes, obviously. 🙄

The point is, the arrangement she requested didn't suit her manager, and no amount of "but I don't think I'm being unreasonable" on AIBU is going to change that.

So she either accepts the decision or she looks elsewhere, if she can.

I clarified this later. OP was asking about whether WFH could be take away and I answered this. I then added a clarification on the flexible working request.

Because I doubt there are many jobs going that offer the hours:

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

So it's better the devil you know, and she's happy with the Friday situation now so all good for the meantime.

I agree- frame the Friday off as a positive.

If I were you I would consider whether you can add those hours to your days in the office Tues- Thurs with minimal pain- both so you continue to get paid, because I think you’ll probably still get the same volume of work and, in a way, attending breakfast club 2/3 days a week is actually fine for the kids (especially if you are off Friday and Monday too).

@SirHumphreyRocks put forward the same argument - they said OP asked for the contractual change. It is the employees responsibility to understand the implications of their actions before taking them.

You told them they were wrong, but they’re actually correct. It was OP’s responsibility to make sure she knew the implications of asking for reduced hours. She instigated the change, but she seemed to be under the impression that the employer had an obligation to accommodate her child care needs. This is not the case, and a quick call to ACAS beforehand would have confirmed that the employer was within their rights to change her terms and conditions according to how the reduced hours would impact the business.

You also told the same poster I'd email to say the current system you agreed back in 2020 has been working very well for you for five years now and you don't agree with the proposed changes to your employment contract.

It’s not about whether the system they agreed to is working well or not. It’s about whether what OP is proposing now works for the business. And clearly it doesn’t because it was rejected.

No. When you’re a self employed contractor and you take a contract, you do have to fulfill that contract which can mean set hours for parts of a job. You’re still self employed.

Self employment isn’t just plumbers or whatnot booking in their own clients.

There are rules for when you become an employee instead of self employed, but a contractor fulfilling their contract is still self employed.

No it isn't. What you said was:
I'd email to say the current system you agreed back in 2020 has been working very well for you for five years now and you don't agree with the proposed changes to your employment contract.

and that it was "tough titty" (I assume that is a legal term I haven't come across previously) if the employer didn't like it.

So you are now accepting that if someone ASKS for a contractual change then the employer is able to suggest an alternative to their proposed changes?

OK, so if you don't like your manager and you haven't had a proper pay rise for 5 years and your working hours are no longer convenient for you, why don't you look elsewhere?

That's what I said about fourteen posts ago.

You would assume massively wrong then, so that is two things you are incorrect about.

Contracts can be changed by force - whether it constitutes unfair dismissal or discrimination is for a court to decide, but unless the change is significant it is unlikely, and even a signbificant change may be accepted by a court. It is called "fire and rehire" and it is something that anyone with substantail employment law experience knows about. And lots of lay people know too since it has been done to many people in recent years and attraced much news attention.

The OP submitted a flexible working request, which is a request to vary their contract. At that point the employer can negotiate any changes to terms they wish. The employee can accept those changes (called compromising) or they can refuse in which case they continue under their existing contract.

This. I gave advice based on twenty years experience in the employment advisory field. As far as I can see OP is the one who instigated the change by asking for a reduction in hours. The manager will have reviewed the request while considering the operational needs of the business and made the decision based on that. Stopping the working from home makes perfect sense - if OP is needed in the office from Tuesday through to Thursday then that’s clearly where he’s put the emphasis because she’s working less hours so more of them need to be office based. Makes sense to me.

OP seems to think they have to accommodate her child care needs and this is not the case. They can’t accommodate the hours she wanted and have suggested an alternative. If the manager can show that this is necessary because of business needs I can’t see much alternative to either OP accepting it or withdrawing the request for reduced hours and carrying on as she was.

Here you are, @ZaHaK

Work

Legal Matters

Do you know that for sure?

If you are the only person who is permitted to WFH, and others had it rejected, then it's possible others have objected. As it's a perk and not in your contract it was probably going to disappear at some point.

I'll assume then that you don't have any relevant qualifications or experience.

OP @ZaHaK These things are often better dealt with on specialist boards rather than AIBU, such as Work or Legal Matters. Perhaps have the thread moved.

Anyone can claim anything, but I seriously hope that you are not giving legal advice if this is the quality that can be expected.

I'm a solicitor of over 20 years standing and have dealt with numerous employment issues in the last five years. I know the law and good practice. What are your qualifications to give an expert opinion on this thread, out of interest?

It is YOU who is giving incorrecty legal advice - and actually none of this is legal advice (thank God, because lots of it is wrong) - this is an anonymous social forum. No legal advice permitted.

It doesn't matter if it wasn't in writing. The contract is established by the working pattern, not what is written down - that's employment law. Your employer is not allowed to put something in your contract and then change the terms in practice, changing them in practice and establishing that over a number of years is a change of contract. Get some advice from ACAS, because this could well count as pregnancy-related discrimination.

She has now said she's content with the outcome though and seeing the positives - extra time with DC - so all's well that ends well eh.

Can that be used on court?

I think she'll find it is very much her problem.

She shouldn't listen to uninformed posters who use puerile expressions such as tough titty without any real thought or reasoning behind it.

Just to clarify, yes the employer can reject a further claim to reduce hours.

She may come back and work on the same basis as she had for five years and went on Mat leave though, with WFH included, and this has become part of her contract even though there was a verbal change.

It isn't. Stop giving incorrect legal advice!