Is my sister BU or her HR department?

[PiperChapstick]

My DSis returned to work affer maternity leave 6 months ago. Before she had her DD she worked 5 days a week. She wanted to go part-time (3 days a week) when she returned, but rather than officially requesting this, she told her boss she wanted to return on full-times hours, but use the annual leave she's accumulated + annual leave for the coming year (60 days in total) to take 2 days off a week (Monday & Friday) for 30 weeks. Basically so she could work part-time but get full-time pay for a while. Her manager agreed to the plan (he is a v close friend of hers though, he's godparent to her DD).

When she'd been back 5 months she put in a formal request with HR to go 3 days part-time, once her holidays had been used up. They've come back to her and denied her request. The reason being that the nature of her job means that it's extremely difficult to recruit someone who would fill in the remaining 2 days, especially a Monday and a Friday. They told her because she was happy to return full-time after maternity leave that they assumed she meant permanently, and had she just asked to be part-time before she returned they'd have looked upon it far more favourably and factored those hours into the business planning (HR weren't aware of the fact she was only actually in the office 3 days a week).

She is putting in a formal complaint about the HR team for discrimination (of what though I don't know!).

Maybe I'm having a bad day but I just don't have much sympathy and don't think HR are BU - I feel she took the gamble and didnt care much for what her arrangement meant for the business. Then again, they've seemingly managed with her being in only 3 days a week til now, and her manager agreed to the arrangement, so maybe SINBU?

Is she doing the job in three days or are her colleagues picking up the slack?

But I don't think it's professional that your sister and her boss are such good friends - it's an obvious conflict of interest and I wouldn't allow it.

No business can either refuse to give someone a job or dismiss them for this reason.

It would seem that it must be quite a big company or the HR dept would know that she has actually only worked 3 days per week successfully for 5 months.... I work in a big company, and although HR make the policy for flexible working, it is the line manager who actually advises as to whether the proposed hours can be accommodated in line with business needs. Is she sure the problem is just with HR?

Also, I agree with Lizs.. if she goes part time she won't receive 30 days per annum anymore .. she will only get 18

She may have only been doing 3 days but really the job needs 5 days, I think the manager/friend is at fault here for allowing the 3-day working and if she pursues a claim in could have an effect in the manager's role.

We had someone on maternity leave last year and her work was redistributed to the remaining team, she then came back a few days per week using up her leave to only work 2 or 3 days per week, she couldn't take back her responsibilities and the team had to carry her. Eventually it was settled that she would work 4 fixed days per week starting late and finishing early (as she must be the only person who has a nursery where you can't drop off until 9 and have to pick up at 5) it is working better for everyone except the colleague who gets to pick up the pieces on her non working day and before 10 and after 4 everyday.

I think it's a bit six of one and half a dozen of the other. I would say HR's real gripe should be with her line manager who agreed the way she's arranged her hours so far but presumably hasn't communicated it to them.

If he has and they've just got registered being informed then that's on their head.

Either way it strikes me as they are being rather jobsworth about the situation, but not really sure how your sis can claim it's discrimination either ?

I work in a big company, and although HR make the policy for flexible working, it is the line manager who actually advises as to whether the proposed hours can be accommodated in line with business needs

Yes same for DSis work, they have 4,000 employees so HR don't oversee every persons annual leave

Minisok, there's no requirement in law that you can only request flexible or part time working before you return from maternity leave. OP's sister hasn't failed to follow the correct process.

The thing is, if you're got accumulated annual leave from maternity leave, they can't stop you from taking it unless they offer to pay it as a cash lump sum. And in my experience, they want it over and done with as soon as possible so you're back up to full working days without shelling out a month or mores worth of wages. Mine was tacked on entirely to the end of my maternity leave with a period of short weeks to start me back after a year off.

She definitely shouldn't have even allowed to take forward leave as that would have been pro-rated to part time hours so she's used leave she definitely wouldn't have been given if she was given part time hours at the end of it. She has tried to pull a fast one there, possibly using her relationship with her boss to her advantage.

The woman who took over my role when I left on maternity leave was only a part time staff member. But my core job could easily be done in her hours. It was all the shared jobs which made it a full time job. This is where your sister may find the discrepancy between doing the job part time v full time. There may be shared jobs which her colleagues were having to pick up the bulk of. So business need means the role is full time, unless they can employ someone else part time to fill in her missing hours your sister wouldn't automatically be approved for part time work. Again, the correct process should have been followed rather than assuming it would be OK as that's what she had been doing anyway.

No one here knows is she is really successfully doing her job in 3 days a week. She may be doing the bare minimum and her colleagues best friend/boss are picking up the slack.

I'd be annoyed as would feel she had been rather sneaky and would have much preferred her to have just been up front.

I wonder if HR will also be talking to her boss - I certainly would be if I was the HR department as sounds like she'/he has been very unprofessional.

She may have only been doing 3 days but really the job needs 5 days

How do you know, Sparkles? You assume that others in the department had to cover her but there's no evidence for that.

Could she offer to take different days off , if it is the Mondays and Fridays which they struggle to fill with PT people ?

Is her line manager supporting her in this request? It would be unusual for HR to be making this decision or to go against the line manager's decision.

Piper.. I meant that in my company the line manager would sign off a change from full time to part time hours, not the HR dept

Sorry, yes, augusta, I know it's not a law but perhaps I should have said followed company policy.

Importantly, she shouldn't have assumed it would be granted based on the hours she was working in order to use her leave. Leave is an entitlement everyone has. Part time working rarely works 100% in favour of the person who requested it. Companies will always use business need as a means to deny it.

Mm. I work in HR and I'm also 'manager' of a team. Normally you would expect the manager/ boss to determine whether a role can be accommodated on different or flexible hours. HR should be advising /,facilitating but very odd if they are making decisions without involving the business. The key here is whether the current 3 day per week arrangement has actually worked and evaluating that. Maybe it hasn't and boss is 'hiding' behind HR.

I bet one of her colleagues has complained to HR about the 'favouritism' your sister is experiencing from her boss.

"HR should be advising /,facilitating but very odd if they are making decisions without involving the business. The key here is whether the current 3 day per week arrangement has actually worked and evaluating that. Maybe it hasn't and boss is 'hiding' behind HR."

Certainly wouldn't be unusual for a manager to blame HR for an unpopular decision they themselves had made...

It's not completely unreasonable to use accrued annual leave to work PT while being paid FT, I did it between my first 2 DC (I returned to work pregnant in September so my few months of working were over 2 annual leave years) and only went officially PT after having DC2. My boss said the company were less affected by me taking annual leave on a weekly basis than by saving it up for a mega holiday so it worked well from both sides.

Your sister should talk to her boss.

Firstly (and most worryingly) if she's used up all this years annual leave allowance already what is she going to do for the rest of the year, is she planning on taking some unpaid parental leave for holidays (assuming she stays FT). If she wants to go PT she's either going to have to pay back her annual leave or work for nothing for a few weeks.

Secondly, is there anyone else doing her role PT? Can she put together a case (with evidence and the support of her boss) showing the work has been done in 3 days a week over the last few months? Would they be open to her working 4 days a week or doing 3 long days?

Thirdly, she needs to sort out childcare sharpish. Does she have an option for FT childcare? Can her DH work 3 or 4 days a week to cover any childcare shortfall?

HR should be advising /,facilitating but very odd if they are making decisions without involving the business. The key here is whether the current 3 day per week arrangement has actually worked and evaluating that. Maybe it hasn't and boss is 'hiding' behind HR.

This x10
Very likely the boss is 'blaming' HR when actually it was his or his managers' decision.
Depending on policy, it is a management decision to accept or decline a flexible working request.
Has your sis had a formal meeting? Who was present? Only HR?

When I've changed my hours, it has been discussed with my manager and then a form is submitted to HR which also has a section in which the manager puts comments on whether or not there is an impact.

Is she able to be flexible about her days? Mondays and Fridays are apparently the days most people have as their day off if they are part time, so there may be issues with cover or there may be policies about being stricter with those days.

In my work we are expected to take a two week block of holiday at least once a year - if we don't there it flags something on the system and sends managers an email.

I couldn't comment on the business cae without more info
But I bet HR are pissed off that sis and boss agreed to usage of as yet unaccrued annual leave
It makes both of them look like they're taking the mickey, unless this is something that has been allowed for all staff?

Your sis must now owe the company leave?

I don't really follow the HR argument that they would have looked more favourably on her application on her return from ML than now. Either they can accommodate it or they can't. The timing of her request shouldn't really make a difference.

I don't think she is being unreasonable. She has already set a precedent for her job to be done in 3 days. I used to work Monday's and Friday's and loved it. I had the Friday feeling Monday's when everyone else was gloomy and Friday's when everyone else was happy.

Pico, I can only guess the lack of honesty and forward use of holiday annoyed them. Also, it's like she didn't just ask them at the start because she didn't believe her own business case. If she now owes them holiday, then any financial gain she made is lost? If she used 60 days in a year, she now has to have no holiday till she's accrued 30 while working part time.