Going back to work PT issue. Boss says i cant have the hours id like as it clashes with hours of person taken on who joined as i went on SMP. Also wont wont pay my travel costs.

[oneluckydad]

I am wondering if the forum would be able to advise me on my partners position with her job.

I will try and keep things concise to enable it to be easy to digest!

My wife is currently on SMP (currently in her 7th month). We have decided we will take the financial knock to allow her to enjoy more time with our little one.

Just to give a little bit of background info; my wife's employer hired another employee just before she left on SML. This employee works part time 9am-3pm, as she has children of her own. It is not clear to us if she was taken on as cover for my wife or as an additional staff member.

We recently wrote to her employer (small business owner) notifying him of her desire to take her full year of Maternity Leave, and also suggest part time working arrangements as Mum would like to spend more time with LO.

Main points of the letter were:

1. Her desire to work 2 or 3 full days a week (instead of the full 5 previously).

2. Wanted clarification that the employer would continue to to pay her commuting travel (bus) costs.

We recently had an informal meeting with her employer to discuss the issues above. As it was informal, there was nothing to be taken as definitive decisions.

POINT 1
Upon listening to first point above, the employer told us that it would be unlikely for her to go part time for 2 or 3 full days as that would mean he would have too many staff members available for those days, and has suggested his desire to take my wife back on to do the hours 12pm-5pm for 5 days a week instead.

Due to commuting time etc this will make working from 12 to 5pm seem not much different to working full time, which goes against our wishes of mum being able to spend more time with LO, and in fact the hours the other part time member has would be better suited to us (working morning to afternoon) if the employer was insistent on her going back to work 5 days a week.

What we are unsure of is if my wife should have her hours dictated because of the employer hired another member of staff who as far as we know was taken on as cover for her maternity leave?

What would of happened to this staff member if my wife said she was to have returned full time?

We also don't want to come across as being horrible to the part time worker who is also a mum, but surely my employer should have told her employment was temporary if that was the case?

Would anyone be able to offer some advice and potential options she has?

POINT2
My wife has been employed by this employer 3+ years. She was in a way 'headhunted' for her job as they had worked together previously. Due to the fact this employer couldn't match her the salary she was getting in her old job (she doesn't get paid a lot) he was happy to pay for her commuting fare to mean she didn't lose out financially.

This has been paid since she has been working there, despite some recent occasions where there has been some dispute where the employer has said he should have to pay my wife it as he doesn't pay for other staff member's petrol costs for their drive to work.

In the same meeting mentioned above, the employer said that on her return to work, he doesn't think he should continue paying this, as he digit initially as a good will gesture.

His main reason is apparently new industry employment guidelines and practices to do with work place equality, and that other staff members would be within their right to ask for the same treatment.

We feel that this is a bit of a cop out and just an excuse for him to cut costs and also pacify a senior staff member who has been critical of my wife's travel payments as they don't get any petrol costs paid.

My wife does not have a contract with her employer, so we are aware that this may leave her without much to bargain with regards her travel costs.

Despite the above comments by her employer, he was insistent and kept on re iterating that the meeting was informal and that what he was saying was his opinion and not formal decisions. We weren't sure if this was an act on his part to coerce my wife into accepting terms she wouldn't want to accept.

Our next step if to look into the above (and other issues not mentioned) and then submit a proper formal letter outlining what we wish for future part time arrangements. The employer will then proceed with a formal reply.

Sorry for the long post, there is more i could have added, but those are the main points!

All feedback would be appreciated!

Interesting - do the travel costs count as salary? She should be paying tax on that surely? Also, I think your employer is right in that it's something to do with unfair terms for p/t workers - there is prob a good case for equal pay/travel costs paid. How do the travel costs get paid? As an expense or via a rail card?
I think you need CAB/legal advice re the temp/maternity cover as it sounds reasonable to assume this person should not have an effect on yr wife's return to work?
Sorry I cannot help - am not trained in this area, but CAB might help or legal advice on yr household insurance maybe?

Thank you for your response.

My wife used to collect her receipts, and hand them in for a refund from her employer.

We can understand that others may feel aggrieved that they do not get a similar perk...but this particular arrangement was discussed and agreed as part of the package of pay / arrangement so my wife would accept the job way back when she was pursued by her employer for the position.

She made it clear that payment of travel would be required so she wouldn't be out of pocket as the employer wasn't willing to match her previous employers wage.

Just odd that it was paid for all this time and now there has been a break in her employment with them they are taking the opportunity to take this away from her.

Possibly tho the new part timer has found this out and requested similar? Did your wife declare this extra income, and pay tax on it? (Just wondering how it worked from emploer's pov)

no wasnt taxed from what we believe.

Wife handed in receipts and then she got cash back each month from employer.

We know the manager who my wife has to deal with to contact the employer had an issue with my wife getting payments for travel so unsure if that has anything to do with this situation.

Does the employer have the right to refuse my wife hours she wants as it clashes with this new part timers hours?

After all the new part timer was taken on a week before i left for maternity leave.

Home to work travel isn't a legitimate expense, so really it's salary. Poss in the time she's been away, this has been looked at again, which is why it's come up. Don't know re: hours - poss try CAB?

Your wife has the right to request flesib le working, and the company has the right to turn that request down, giving valid business reasons. Yes, the employer has the right to refuse your wife the hours she wants.

It doesn't really matter at all that the part timer was taken on after your wife, how is that relevant? Length of service doesn't make you first in the pecking order.

Sounds like she's made a request for flexible working, and the request has been turned down for valid business reasons - the hours she wants don't work for the business, so not much you can do about that, except appeal.

"What we are unsure of is if my wife should have her hours dictated because of the employer hired another member of staff who as far as we know was taken on as cover for her maternity leave?"

Doesn't really matter - she is not having her hours dictated - she has a contract and terms for her hours - which she is hoping to change, but the change she wants clearly doesn't fit with the business needs.

I think that the dad is asking the following:

The wife is returning to her old job, requesting p/t hours. Due to the fact that her maternity cover is now staying, these hours are not convenient. If the mat cover wasn't there, the hours might be ok?

?What we are unsure of is if my wife should have her hours dictated because of the employer hired another member of staff who as far as we know was taken on as cover for her maternity leave??

-There?s no reason for her employer to change an existing part time arrangement someone else has in order to accommodate your wife?s request. It?s reasonable to refuse a part time working request if it doesn?t fit in with existing arrangements. Otherwise you?d get 5 people working 4 day weeks and all having Friday off, or similar.

?What would of happened to this staff member if my wife said she was to have returned full time??

-That would be up to the employer. You?re not even sure the person was maternity cover so it may be the employer would want to keep them both anyway.

?We also don't want to come across as being horrible to the part time worker who is also a mum, but surely my employer should have told her employment was temporary if that was the case??

-If what was the case? The other worker?s contract is between her and the employer. If the employment is temporary, yes the employer should have said so, but presumably you have no knowledge of that anyway. If it is temporary, the employer wants to end it and finds it difficult because of the contract, that?s for him to worry about at the time, it?s nothing to do with your wife.

In terms of the travel expenses, he can?t withdraw this as it will be part of her terms and conditions. It is a taxable benefit though, so there will be a lot of tax owing on it should HMRC find out. Difficult to see why it wasn?t just added to her salary in the first place tbh. She should say she is happy to agree to relinquish this benefit as long as the difference is made up in her salary.

?My wife does not have a contract with her employer, so we are aware that this may leave her without much to bargain with regards her travel costs.?

-Just because her contract isn?t written down doesn?t mean it doesn?t exist. It?s just more difficult to clarify but a benefit that has been provided for 3 years will be contractual.

Thank you all for your comments... some have them have cleared up some issues.

we have absolutely nothing against the other part timer working, and wouldn't wish to cause them any problems.

Its just a matter for clarification, as we believed it was just normal for maternity cover staff to be temporary.

If the employer has taken them on as a permanent member of staff, then its odd to find the main reason for refusing my wife's suggested arrangements is because he would have too much staff working at the same time.

12-5 doesnt really allow for my wife to spend more time with the little one, as she wouldnt be able to plan anything as she will always be waiting to goto work.

Also as the other person works 9-3... that still means 15 hours out of 20 hrs a week my wife will work will be overlapped by the other part timer.

Perhaps we are paranoid about being not given a fair solution.

You've been given sound advice here 're: the travel expenses.
As far as the wish to change her working hours goes, your dp needs to focus on the issue of how any new hours she requests will benefit the company. I can see that working 12 to 5 may not fit with what she wants, but this is not the employers concern. Don't frame a request for flexible working in terms of what you want because it suits your childcare wishes; frame it in terms of how it will not affect the employer or colleagues adversely at all. At the end of the day, that's what employers are interested in

Whether the other member of staff is temporary or permanent with respect is none of your wife's business at all, and isn't relevant to this discussion. If your wife said she planned to come back full time, and the employer said no because of this other person, then it becomes relevant. But you have no reason to believe that would happen anyway.

What do you think a fair solution would be then? You say your wife has no desire to create problems for the other employee, so what does she want instead?

Your wife has the right to return to the same job she left - which means working the same hours. She can request part time hours but the employer doesn't have to agree. She certainly doesn't have the right to dictate what part time hours she is prepared to work.
Employers would not normally pay travel expenses to and from the usual workplace.

I think your expectations of employers are way out of touch with reality on this.

Although I totally agree that any p/t arrangements have to suit the employer and you need to frame the request that way, saying that you can't return for 2 or 3 full days because that gives too much staff cover on those days is an odd reason because the default position is that your DP comes back full time, which by implication would give too much staff cover 5 days a week, surely they must have thought of this? Unless the other employee is fixed term and would leave if your DP came back full time.

Would your DP be prepare to do say 12-5 for 2 to 3 days a week? She could then reasonably request that a jobshare partner be recruited for the other days. Benefits to the employer being greater flexibility to cover holidays, broader range of experience, etc, etc.

Thank you once again for all your comments.

Regards Travel Payments
We agree this isnt standard procedure for employers to do this.

However this was part of the payment package of what was offered with the job. Without the travel included, it meant she was taking a job on less pay than her previous full time job, and she wouldnt have taken her current job in the first place if she would have been out of pocket.

If you were offered a job, and an important part of the terms were withdrawn from it.... wouldn't you feel a bit aggrieved?

Regards the other Part Timer.
We just wanted to investigate this that is all. We are all new to this.. so turning to the forum for some proper advice.

We have seen many jobs advertised as 'maternity cover'. I would imagine anyone who takes on a maternity cover position knows that when the other person returns to work, their position will end or will be extended with different working hours etc.

Unfortunately we do not know if this person was taken on as maternity cover, or as a permanent position. Just makes it odd if the employer is giving the reason of having too much staff available as an reason not to be able to offer any other solution. Esp as it would be an issue if my wife decided to continue FT.

I think we are a bit perhaps knocked and disappointed as we thought we had a solution that worked well for all of us that meant mum could have more time with LO.

We are happy to accept compromised terms as long as its fair... we just wanted to check that we werent being unfairly treated.

I agree with what everyone else says. Just because there is an employee already on the hours your wife wants doesn't give her the right to the same hours. You have to deal with the situation as it is, not as you would like it to be.

yep... cool.

Will be checking things out through official channels in the week.

:)

X-posts. Ref the part time situation, you are not being unfairly treated. Her boss had to hire someone when your wife was away. The terms he came to with her, be they permanent or temp, part or full time, are simply not relevant to your wife's request, even if you think they are.

Ref travel cost - these should not be taken away and your wife is in her rights to demand that they either be reinstated or reflected in a salary uplift. But do bear mind that these should have been taxed all along so you do potentially have a large tax bill coming.

You really need to divert energy away from worrying about how this other person's role was advertised and what they were told. It's not relevant to your problem.

As far as you are aware the employer may have said to this person, 'yes you can come part time, but if oneluckydad's wife wants to come back full time, you'll be out of a job'. Which would be fine.

Has your wife asked the other part time person whether she would be prepared to do a job share both working 2/3 days a week? You never know.

Looking back at my posts it looks like we seems like we have it in for the other person! lol

We absolutely do not. And do not have any bad feeling towards them at all.

I think now things have subsided (and we have been offered some great advice on here) we are starting to see a bit clearer now.

I think my wife and I were just a bit down in the dumps that we felt we were geting a rough deal.

We do appreciate that the employer has a business to run and we are wary of this.

But this is the same employer that wanted my wife to use her holiday entitlement for her Anti Natal classes (she only did 3!) ... which he wasn't allowed to tell her to do... so we are just being wary.

The problem with flexible hours is that everyone will want the "mummy hours" and not to work Fridays/Mondays and that's simply not possible because some poor bugger has to work them!

If the part time member of staff is being kept on if your wife were to return to her job full time, then it is an additional staff member, not a replacement. Ergo your wife either goes back full-time or accepts that she can't do the job she left and therefore is essentially reapplying for a part-time job which fits in round the part-time worker already there.

The way I'm reading this is that there are 2 x full time workers normally - your wife + the boss. And then they added a part-time worker so 2.5 people. For your wife to return part-time only equals 2 people and not covering the required time frame and therefore it's not possible unless they hire someone else to take up the slack.