Flexible working request - 3 days vs 2.5 days

[CheshireSplat]

Hi.

My DH has asked to go 3 days a week in January. His role does need full time cover so he has put forward suggestions, from a straightforward job share to a less qualified employee doing 3 days so they have a day overlap but the benefit of more man-hours.

His employer has said (informally as we havent submitted the flexible working request yet) that he can do 5 days or 2.5. That extra half day is important to us as it'll mean lrss time with our DD, extra childcare etc.

The reason his work have given for the 2.5 days is that it'll be harder to recruit someone for 2 days than 2.5. He disagrees. Many people find half days a pain die to childcare, travelling to work etc that he thinks it's more likely someone would want to do 2 days than 2.5.

The question is, what can we do? Do they have to show reasoning behind this "no-one wants to work 2 days but plenty want to work 2.5" approach. As they have so much time to think about this, could they be obliged to see if anyone wants a 2 day week before they force a 2.5 day week on my DH?

The employer is a county council which goes on about its "family friendly" policies. Are we being unreasonable to look for 2.5 rather than 3 days?

My DH is currently the only one in his team who doesn't work part time, one of only 2 who seems to make any effort or take responsibility. His manager has the most ridiculous part time hours (including an evening when none of her staff or patients are around). Have these things clouded our judgment or can we fight (and if so how) for 3 days? Can we force them to see if anyone would want a 2 day a week job before they say no-one would?

Thanks!

Not too sure of the legalities of it, but another option may be 50/50 split with someone but alternating weeks eg your DH works 3 days one week then 2 the next. I've known a few people do that in the past as although getting paid for 2.5 days a week, means not as much travel etc over the course of a month.

I'm a bit confused about the 3 days for someone more junior option you've put forward? Would that person be doing the lower grade elements of your DH's role? If the post were at the same level you couldn't guarantee you'd get someone cheaper and it could cost the employer extra money at a time when budgets are tight.

Thanks for the replies.

He's always argued that it doesn't need someone of his seniority to do the job but his managers don't agree. It would be someone of a lower grade doing the same work as him, with one day when they're both in which would allow some supervision. They've said no on the basis that for the days he isn't in supervision would come from someone in a different building and that wouldn't work (ie it does need someone of his experience). This sounds reasonable, HOWEVER he's taking 3 months of my mat leave when I go back to work and they've already arranged his cover. Someone newly qualified who will have to be supervised, you've guessed it, from that same different building. So that just shows that option is possible so he'll be spelling that out to his managers.

I know people have far worse problems but they just seem to be saying (sometimes contradictory) things to justify their position rather than thinking about what could work (eg seeing if anyone wants to do 2 days).