Angry my manager has taken away WFH perk?

[ZaHaK]

Am I unreasonable to be angry that my manager has taken away my wfh perk whilst I’m on maternity?

I have put in a proposed flexible work plan.

I used to do Tuesday - Thursday on site and Friday morning at home.

I requested to do less hours so I can drop the kids off to school and pick them up and keep my wfh Friday morning hours.

He’s rejected it and basically cornered me into just doing Tuesday- Thursday on site but I don’t want to reduce my hours too much so I’ve had to add an hour in the morning which means rushing my kids to breakfast club and nursery.

I am annoyed because on my last maternity 6 years ago, I applied for another job in another department which guaranteed wfh and my manager promised me more flexibility and wfh when I able to to keep me in his team.

But I feel like he’s used this maternity as an excuse to take it away from me. It’s not in my contract, it was an agreement between me and him.

What would you do? I feel like emailing him to say I am disappointed in him. Not many of our team like him but I used to rate him quite highly on the surveys etc because he always let me be. But I am really disappointed. I should have gone to the other team.

spoonbillstretford is right, talk to ACAS. Its not like the arrangement was going on for a couple of months. Be clear about the time line, write it out before you phone them.

On the grounds that she has already been doing it and it works - i'm not saying she would get it, but if the first response is no I would appeal the decision and they would need to have a good reason why she couldn't

Tough titty. That is the manager's and other members of staff's problem and not the OP's to worry about.

So you do 2 1/2 days 2 on site and 1/2 day wfh
you’ve asked to reduce your hours and they’ve offered to drop the 1/2 day Fri

it’s what works for the company not particularly what you want

This has been said multiple times on the thread... whether or not the previously agreed term has become contractual is entirely irrelevant. The OP has asked the employer to change their contract. The employer is not obliged to make any changes, so they can propose their own too. OP may accept them or not - employer can refuse to make any changes. And then employer could impose a contractual change anyway IF they think the wfh agreement might be contractual.

He works for the HMRC. He’s a contractor for them…

You’ve asked to change your contractual hours. It’s not because of the maternity. It would have stayed the same had you been returning on the same terms.

Tough titty on the OP - she asked for the contractual change. It is the employees responsibility to understand the implications of their actions before taking them.

It isn't. Stop giving incorrect legal advice!

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.

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.

Can that be used on court?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

What if he’s given a valid reason in the eyes of HR? He’s given a reason that a recent inspection requires more on site ( I’ve tried to argue this) but in the end, HR will side with him as he’s arguing it’s business needs - even though I know full well they’ve reduced headcount so I’ve gone from checking two full time employees work to one person who also works part time now since I’ve gone on maternity. But he’s not taking that into consideration.

My manager hates people WFH even though he does it himself. He likes to control his numerous team and throw his weight around. He even gets his other team to write down what time they started lunch and what time they finished. He isn’t a respected or liked manager.

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.

I actually have no idea what people are talking about above.

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.

Here you are, @ZaHaK

Work

Legal Matters

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.

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.

That's what I said about fourteen posts ago.