Indirect Discrimination - any experts out there?

[GahBuggerit]

Ive had a flex working request refused (currently work FT 5 days a week, asked to reduce to 4 days) on the grounds that my managers personal opinion is that my role needs to have a prescence(sp?) in the office 5 days a week for business continuity, however they have offered a compromise of half a day off one afternoon which isnt going to help me much with childcare.

Having read up on it it seems that I might have a case for appeal on the grounds of indirect discrimination, does anyone know if this is right? I obviously dont want to cause any bad feeling but tbh this is the latest in a long line of shittiness and Im fed up of never questioning anything they say or do.

Surely 'business presence' is not a valid business reason for refusing flexible working. I would ask for clarification of exactly what this is via HR in writing.

Not an expert. But if they have declined it for one of the specified business reasons you may appeal. It isn't discrimination AFAIK to refuse - you have the right to apply for FW but no right to be granted it.
"The business grounds for rejecting a flexible working request
You can only reject a flexible working request on a limited number of set grounds.

These are:

planned structural changes
the burden of additional costs
a detrimental impact on quality
the inability to recruit additional staff
a detrimental impact on performance
the inability to reorganise work among existing staff
a detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand
lack of work during the periods the employee proposes to work"

Sorry to hear this. No experience of appeals in this sort of case. But what about a job share?

My employer refused my request for 4 days but accepted me going 3 days and getting someone in to do the other 2 days. Would something like that work for you?

sounds like this is the latest in a long line of crapness though, so my suggestion might not be helpful.

I guess what Im basically asking is can I appeal their decision that "its my opinion that you need to be in the office for a period of time each day" in this day and age of technology where I can be contacted on the phone or via email a justified business reason to refuse my request?

Hmm, I'm not sure. My employer said the role needed to be fulfilled 5 days a week. So a job share worked.

bump for someone with more experience of this!

No way they woudl do a jobshare Oldest. I just know they wouldnt.

I'll be honest Im torn between appealing and just keeping my gob shut because even if they do accept an appeal they will probably make my life hell.

I know they arent discriminating by refusing, but I have read that by saying that people doing my job have to be in the office 5 days a week could be indirect discrimination because it can put women at a disadvantage because they are generally the ones who request it.

Gah! God I hate them

I think I coudl understand if it was, say a production line where someone needs to man each section every day. But I work in an office where to a degree you set your own work, and I also work in a team of people who cover for each other when there are holidays / sickness etc. Basically my role isnt 'unique' to the office, and when there are any queries that cant wait until the person is back in we just ring/text each other so I cant see the problem (but there again I woudlnt woudl I? )

Yes, you can appeal on grounds that 'presence' is not a genuine business reason and that you can do your job form home without a detrimental effect on performance.

BUT are you asking to do 4 days work + 1 day home, or just 4 days? If you are proposing a 20% reduction in your hours then they may have more grounds for refusing (although they still need to find a business reason)

Still - no Im asking if I can do 4 days paid a week so a reduction in hours.

Im second guessing here but Id say they woudl say the business reason is that I need to be in the office for core hours every day so people can contact me via telephone if they have any queries, but they will be queries that colleagues can help with and if not I have said that I woudl have my phone on all the time and they can ring me if anything arises that cant wait until Im back in the office.

It is indirect sex discrimination to say that a role can only be worked full time. The percentage of females who can comply with this requirement is lower than the percentage of makes. However, indirect discrimination can potentially be justified (unlike direct discrim) and so I'd it is in fact the case that a presence is required five days a week then this may be justification. How do you expect them to cover the day you want to have off? They won't be able to hire someone for one day a week. Unfortunately you entered into a full time contract and if the company has a good business reason for denying your request then they can do so. Requests to work 2.5 days are easier than requests to work four days since at least that way the company might be able to find someone willing to job share.

Sorry for typos - stupid ipad

Thanks Virgil, that makes sense. Id expect them to cover my day off in any other way as if I was on holiday or a day off sick, or on my half day which they offered as a compromise - non urgent queries just wait until Im back in, anything comes in that my co-workers dont know about then they can ring/text me. I thought I put together a really good case and I covered all of the concerns I think they would have, they havent acknowledge any of this except to say they dont think it woudl work.

TBH now Im a bit less upset a bit Im leaning towards just finding something else. If I kick up a fuss about anything they'll make me pay for it one way or another so theres not much point.

Thanks for the advice

" could be indirect discrimination because it can put women at a disadvantage because they are generally the ones who request it."

I doubt it very much. But you can appeal.