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?

She can appeal if she wants.

However, I have been at the other end of this with someone coming back from may leave changing their mind over and over again.

It's one thing to agree to a temporary reduction in service. It's entirely another to be reaching the end of that period with w sigh of relief to find out that the person you've accommodated now wants further accomodation.

If she'd told them she wanted to go PT when she first returned they'd have had w change to scope it out and recruit someone for the shortfall. I think she's being quite selfish about the impact of her choices on the business needs.

Agree with pp that the manager is blaming HR for his decision so he can be the good guy. I am always slightly hmm that people think HR, especially in large organisations, have the time or inclination to maliciously interfere in people's work lives-action taken is almost always at the instigation of line management.

Seems odd that HR are deciding whether the job can be done three days a week. They wouldn't have a clue where I work (and probably couldn't care less). The decision would be the line managers (whether or not HR passed on the bad news).

Sue she has asked if I can watch her DD on my days off (I'm shortly changing jobs so will only be working 3 days a week myself) hence why I know the craic!

I said it was strange that HR have the final say but the way it apparently works is they consult the business plan that's formed at the start of the year which tells them how many bodies they need to do what jobs (sounds too bloody beurocratic if you ask me).

If she doesn't win her appeal she's gonna find a new job - I hope it doesn't take too long as TBH as much as I love my niece the reason I went down to 3 days (from 4) is to spend more one to one time with my own DD.

Could go either way here.

I think the best way forward is when is her appraisal due? Can someone appraise her and see if indeed the role can be done in 3 days effectively or whether it needs more, if it were another day could it be upped to 4 days?

Her plan re holiday is very cunning though, designed to get other colleagues backs up and what if she needs holiday etc what will she do then, unpaid leave or go sick?

Her boss as others have said probably feels pressure from his bosses too.

She should have really put in an official request but then I'm guessing she knew it'd be turned down hence her doing it in an Underhand way.

Bit too late to cry wolf or unfair discrimination now (yes she'd lose as someone else said as HR can turn down new working arrangements).

Introducer she just had a meeting with her manager who reiterated what HR said ...which admittedly sounds dodgy now I think about it!

If she goes PT she will owe A/L to the company, if she doesn't realise that then I'm not sure what to say.

Also, what company allows an employee to use all of next years A/L to effectively work PT?!

Your sister clearly hasn't thought this through and now it's backfiring on her.

If she leaves for a new job, won't she owe even more of her holiday?

Yes she would owe A/L even if she left, she'd effectively lose a chunk of money in the last payslip.

Yes she would, her holidays are 1st September-31st August and she only has 3 days left!

I'm really surprised at a company allowing a member of staff to have every Monday/Friday off for months - most companies don't allow this at all - ours doesn't (public sector)

She should have discussed her wishes upon her return - with HR - and put it in writing

HR/The Company do not have to grant her request - so I'm not sure what her argument about discrimination is about

Maybe if she worked Mon/Tue/Weds or Weds/Thursday/Friday she would have more luck - finding someone willing to work Monday/Friday will be tricky

There's nothing wrong with using annual leave in this way. I'm about to use the leave I have built up in this way, in agreement with my line manager. The alternative was me using it up before I started back on reduced hours but this suited both of us and HR said it was up to the line manager. When I run out of leave I might submit a request to reduce my hours and will be annoyed if it's dismissed out of hand. It sounds like she wouldn't have been any better off if she had requested reduced hours from the start though it's hard to mount a claim as it's only a right to request flexible working. She may have a good case if they haven't even made basic enquiries about whether the role can be done part time

HR departments have worked to make sure managers properly consider requests and reach legally compliant decisions in these cases everywhere I've worked. They'd deal with the correspondence and arrive at the wording, but the decision always lay with the managers. Your sis is being duped by her boss, I reckon.

I agree there's nothing wrong with using leave this way, I do it because I don't go away much.

But it's the use of leave in advance of accruing it that has made it seem odd.

+1 for Introducer's remarks.

More generally, I'd suggest it's very hard to tell. I see a lot of people have suggested that she's shown the job can be done in 3 days; yet prior to Maternity leave that would seem to imply that she took 5 days to do 3 days worth of work? That doesn't seem very likely. What's much more likely is that actually the informal arrangement isn't working from the Employer's perspective and either her colleagues are taking on some of her burden, work isn't being done, or perhaps her Mon/Fri off arrangement is causing resentment amongst other colleagues - especially if she and the manager are known to be friends.

IF the argument is that the work can be done in 3 days then fair enough but then she won't be able to go back to work full time in the same role asit will be a reduced role.

If she is working 3 days and the job requires 5 then HR are right in not allowing her to go part time.

As someone has said, its the line managers responsibility and I suspect that other members of the team are getting upset that they are covering someone else's job.

I don't see how anyone can say who's BU, since we don't know whether she's actually been doing the job properly in 3 days a week or not. It wouldn't be the first time a company put presenteeism and 'we've always done it like this' before actual sense and fairness, it also wouldn't be the first time something like this worked temporarily but not in the long run.

A company has no obligation to allow any member of staff to go from full time to part-time. A lot of firms don't like downgrading a full-time job to a part-time one. It messes with their staffing. I think she is very lucky that they allowed her to go back and work only three days thus using up her annual leave. I don't think she'd have any case for complaint.

If she's doing her job in 3 days it seems churlish to refuse, and a bit odd given that they will save money.

It's common practice where I work for returnees to use up their holiday leave accrued during mat leave then go part-time, but I assume this is usually negotiated in advance.

There is a legal procedure to be followed when requesting part time work ('working flexibly') from a previous full time position and it is very important that this procedure is followed to the letter in each case, no matter how close the relationship between employee and boss is. This is to ensure that there can be no accusations of favouritism when granting or not granting permission to work part time.

As other posters have mentioned, this is not a decision that is made by HR. They would have asked the Line Manager (her boss) whether the role could be carried out in 3 days and presumably he has said no. HR then have had to deliver that message.

Your sister can appeal as per the legal procedure but the onus is on her to show how the role can be satisfactorily carried out in 3 days without adding to the workload of colleagues.

Her boss is hiding behind HR - they have not made the decision in isolation.

There would be no claim for discrimination.

I work in HR and have done for many years and the amount of blame that HR get for having to deliver bad management decisions pisses me off.

Sorry for the boring post.

I love the way on mumsnet everyone confidently posts that procedures in a place they've never worked in "will have been correctly followed". This wouldn't be the first employer to give loose interpretation to employment rights and things like "companies don't like it, it messes with their staffing", whatever that might mean, is why decent part time roles are hard to come by. I do an important and responsible job part time. It works perfectly well with a bit of give and take on both sides. It's lazy not to give the matter proper consideration

I agree longest lurker.

But in answer to your question op it sounds like everyone is being difficult and inflexible.

If it is her bosses decision and not HR, that would suggest she isn't doing the job in three days and it's causing issues for others.

The boss is her friend and helped her out before. Why not now?

Maybe there have been problems but since she has been using annual leave they have just muddled through, but it isn't a long term solution.

The line manager has been naive and unprofessional in permitting the use of a/l to support a part time working pattern. That is a classic example of how not to do it, and I think it's explicitly prohibited in the employee contract where I work - probably because someone once did exactly this, and caused massive headaches.

I agree, it's quite possible that the LM is the one who is driving the decision making here, and trying to blame it on HR. What a mess.

To all those saying it's the managers decision, how it works at my organisation is that there's a discussion between our HR rep, the manager and the head of finance to discuss what accommodations we can reach. The guidance is to treat each instance of a request individually and to not unreasonably refuse.

It's not suspicious that the line manger is saying the same thing as HR, they've all checked the business plan and confirmed they need the post as five days. They also believe it would be impractical to recruit someone gif just two days ( and they're right, it's a terrible increment to have to fill).

Your sister should have been honest with them on her return that she wanted to go PT because at that point they have a strong obligation to accommodate due to maternity leave rules. Instead she's led them to believe she wanted to stay FT and then sprung this on then.

Her colleagues are probably very tired of being messed about.

And I say this as a manager who supports and benefits from PT posts in my team.