Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Work

Chat with other users about all things related to working life on our Work forum.

Flexible working refused - discrimination?

2 replies

Ilikecakes · 09/05/2012 14:33

Sorry folks, this is a long one but I just want to sanity check my thinking on this please!

I put in a flexible working application in December to do 3 days per week upon my return from maternity leave in June. In a phonecall a month or so later, my manager stated that he believed the role had grown significantly since I'd been off, so I said I would have another chat with my maternity cover to establish the new elements of the role. After chatting with her, I still felt the role could be worked flexibly (the biggest 'new' elements were in fact things I used to do anyway that she had somehow got away with not doing for ages!) so restated this to my manager, but also put forward a very high level proposal to job-share with an experienced colleague if my manager was adamant he wanted full-time coverage.

I made several attempts then to contact my manager to try and discuss the details of these options ie what job-share split would be, or how many hours 3 days per week could potentially be (compressed days etc) and the specifics of how we could make either part-time or job sharing work for the business. Received nothing back from manager until I was asked to join a call with HR in early March to 'discuss' my application. On the call, there was no discussion whatsoever, just me running through the info already submitted in my application and, despite me trying to initiate it, no discussion around how either option could work, no feedback given from my manager as to either option and no alternatives discussed. A few days later, I received a rejection of both options on fairly flimsy grounds.

Went to appeal which was upheld on the grounds that no actual discussion on my flexibility had taken place. However the next step recommended was for my manager to have a full discussion with me on my flexibility to meet the requirements of the role.....BUT that the role had to be full-time. Emailed the chair of the appeal to ask him to clarify this blatantly contradictory statement (did it more politely than that!) but - as with most steps in this process - I didn't receive a reply.

I've subsequently spoken to my manager and he's emphasised role must be full-time (again, on fairly flimsy grounds) so three options I've now been given are to go back full-time, go back PT for 8 weeks while I look for another job, or to resign. I upped the days I would work to four compressed ones, meaning I would be doing 32 hours per week, but still got a flat no.

AIBU to be completely cheesed off at them just saying no to absolutely everything, without any discussion? ACAS have confirmed they are in breach of process as they can't have seriously considered my proposal if they just refused it without having all necessary info, so this gives me grounds to go to tribunal alone.

However I'm wondering if there's anything discriminatory going on as something does feel very odd about their refusal to even entertain the idea. I work for a very large, very (apparently) family-friendly organisation and within my office of 300-odd people, there isn't one mother of young children that works full-time, including those more senior than me and/or those who manage people. Always performed well, got on with everyone etc, so don't imagine there's any great conspiracy against me, but really can't see why there's no flexibility at all. My manager has started since I've been off so doesn't know me (same goes for his boss who would've been involved in decision making) which isn't helping as I suppose from their point of view it'd be easier to just keep my cover on full-time. Should mention that this is my second maternity leave, which came mortifyingly soon after the first - I was only back for four months then went off again. Don't imagine that has anything to do with it, but it's the only difference I can see between me and all the other mums who work PT.

TIA!

OP posts:
StillSquiffy · 09/05/2012 16:47

You've mentioned 'flimsy reasons' on their part, but what are these reasons? It is difficult to advise when we have only your point of view, so we would need to know more about their arguments. That other mums are all part time doesn't really matter one way or the other (although they would use this to justify that they are not discriminating against you because they have been flexible when possible with other mums).

What is it that they could argue makes your job unsuitable for flexi working relative to the other mums' roles?

Ilikecakes · 09/05/2012 20:44

Thanks for reply and yes, know discrimination would be v difficult to establish given how many others work flexibly. The reasons they have initially were that 1) can't do job share as they need a consistent level of expertise on each marketing campaign - there's no reason why each of us couldn't be assigned to a particular campaign to ensure consistency. 2) the role now includes evening events+trips away - it always did (it actually includes a bit less now) and I've never suggested that I'd be unable to attend them if working PT. 3) no budget for job share - if this is the case, of course I can't argue with that however I don't see how they could say this without us having discussed how role would be split or without salary disclosures from my colleague.

Took these points apart at appeal and now manager is simply saying the job's grown too much to consider anything less than FT. No specifics as to how much extra time these new elements would take-or even details of what they are, despite my asking for them.

Sorry, should have also said previously that my role was done on a PT basis prior to my joining the company-I'm not setting a precedent at all.

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page