AIBU about this flexible working request

[zeezeek]

I've had a flexible working request from someone in my team. As he's childfree it's not for any childcare responsibilities, but because he's just been appointed as Chair of Governors at a local primary school due to the fact that the school has recently had a poor (undeserved in my opinion) OfSTED inspection. As he is an experienced Governor he has been brought in to help the school's governing board improve.

To do that he will need time out of the day to attend meetings and visit the school, so has asked if he could have flexible working to allow that. He is mostly based in the office and has the sort of job that can be done from home or can catch up in the evenings - he's perfectly willing to do that as and when necessary. So I am happy to grant his request.

However, last year I had to turn down another person's request. She wanted to cut her hours so that she had a day at home with her children. I had to refuse her request due to the fact that she was working on a project that had some very tight and important deadlines coming up and her role was (still is) vital to the success of the project and there was no-one who was experienced enough in that particular field to cover her for that day. She was obviously upset and annoyed, but accepted the decision.

Now I'm concerned that if I agree to this new request I'm going to end up pissing off another valued member of staff, but don't want to turn down his request because it is completely reasonable and we can accomodate it. It is likely that in about 6 months time I might be able to allow the other one, but at the moment it is very much all hands on deck with that project.

AIBU to allow one and not the other?

that's exactly what I'm saying, it has to be viable to accept a resource working slightly less if your other choice is the person leaving, which was what I said I perceived as the risk from the start. Of course there's always the show them the door for the sake of the others/principle of the thing, it just seems like that's a sub-optimal outcome all around unless this person is generally awful at her job and hard to manage.

She...was aware that I needed someone in that role full time throughout the course of the project - it was discussed thoroughly at the time of her appointment as she had previously been working part time.

I think you're on safe ground then, regardless of her going to HR and playing the parent card.

op is on safe ground legally and morally. Practically though...

Soooo.... a few days ago there was a thread that sounds VERY like it might have been started by the employee who was denied flexible hours.

She said that her boss had said that her project couldn't possibly do without her, but was granting flexible hours to a childless man in an equivalent role to hers, so that he could do something that was potentially career developing and related to public service.

I'll go find the thread...

Here it is.

My point is that this thread is potentially quite identifying!

Just saw that someone linked to this thread from that thread. Sorry - I'll get back under my rock now and actually do some work...

There are various pieces of information which make it highly unlikely that the two threads are connected.

agree doesn't look the same to me.

There are various pieces of information which make it highly unlikely that the two threads are connected.

^ this

You can't lump them together.

School governor is one of those that comes under 'Public Duty' I think.

The two,threads are absolutely not related. We are not public sector and my employee is not in a management position! There is a little bit too much concern from others that this thread is identifiable and I'm going to be outed. I can categorically state that if that was the case I wouldn't post anything about it! As the myriad of threads we do have on here about this issue shows, it is not an isolated or rare incidence. I also happen to know that neither of my colleagues use MN and neither of them know I do.

I am ever outed then I'll take it like a grown up and scuttle off and name change

HR has explained our decision making again and supports me in declining her request at present.

For the op who said my DH should step up, well he already does in many ways and is the primary carer for our children as well as working as a consultant on various projects. He's semi retired and is nearly 70 so I would prefer to be in a position where his health isn't at risk. He already has hypertension.

I have sympathy for her, but the bottom line is that if she walks out in a strop from this job then as it's a closed and somewhat incestuous world we work in, she is unlikely to easily get another job.

People seem to think that work/life situations are much more uncommon/identifying than they really are.

It's less likely that your colleague will see you, and more likely that some other person in a similar situation (because there are LOADS of them) will wonder if this is about them.

Doesn't quite address why you'd rather lose her entirely than let her work a bit less and be more engaged - it sounds as though you feel she's still got too much to lose by quitting completely so are banking on her not leaving ultimately.

Rogue - I need someone in that job full time. At present there is no alternative. If she quits then between DH and I we would have to manage short term, until I could recruit someone else (I know one other person with the experience and know they'd be happy to join our team but would need to complete their current contract).

There is a part of me that doesn't care whether she stays or goes because I hate her current attitude that she is more superior than other members of the team because she has reproduced and they haven't. To be honest she has probably always been like that but now it is starting to cause problems for another valued member of the team. I happen to think that being a governor and supporting a school in trouble is a valuable use of time, but even if he wanted to spend a morning watching This Morning it really wouldn't matter because he does another job and his job does not require him to be in the office all the time. There is also the fact that i know and trust him to catch up with any work he doesn't do during the time he's in the office, whilst she refuses to work late and refuses to do work in the evening. Luckily her role involves just one aspect of the project and her workload can be done between 9-5 which is unusual for this field.

Ah well that kills it for me - you don't feel she's really bought into the project - if she refuses to work late or do work in the evening when needed then she is not helping herself. Yes I don't understand how she can say her reason is more valid, I'd have more sympathy if she was desperate to see more of her dc and saying she could make up the hours evenings etc. when needed.