Revocation of condensed hours working

[DMCWelshCakes]

I went back to work 6 months ago & since then both DH & I have been working full time hours condensed into 4 days. This has meant that DiddyDragon & DiddyCakes only need to go to nursery for 3 days and we can afford things like mortgage, food, clothing etc. There's certainly no money for holidays or theme parks etc.

Yesterday DH's company told him that they'd reviewed his arrangement and would be making him return to 5 days in the office. The reason they gave was that the level above him can't do the job only being in the office on 4 days & they're thinking about him becoming that level.

It's left us financially screwed (there is no family or any other back up, it's pretty much nursery or hiding them in our desk drawers & hoping no one notices) as well as really angry at their cavelier attitude.

Am I right in thinking that you can't change someone's hours back based on a job that they don't actually do, that you haven't given them and most certaintly are not paying them for?

And any ideas on whether we can appeal?

Did you get anything in writing when DH moved to compressed hrs? I know a lot of companies seem reluctant to put flexible working in a change of contract and then it seems they have lot of discretion to move the goalposts.

Can DH talk to boss about what specifically he needs to be in office for 5 days a week? He is still doing ft hours so it shouldn't be a case of workload, hopefully more about moving some things around eg face to face meetings.

As far as Im aware, if you work with out a contract your contract is essentially verbal, and based on how you have been working since your last payday. So no, I dont think they can do it. For Gods sake check though before doing anything!! If citizens advice is no good and you cant afford legal advice try 'the new penguin book of the law' I found in the past bad employers are well aware of the law and if you can confront them with it in an informed manner they give up....

Was it a formal flexible working request? If so, any change agreed is a permanent change to terms and conditions, and therefore can't be changed back unilaterally by the employer.

Yes it was all requested formally & agreed in writing.

I need to get the letter off DH to see exactly what it said about duration and so on.

His line manager seems to be more amenable to him being out of the office for one day a week but the HR department seem to be determined to go back on the agreement.

The really stupid thing is that it only needs to be for another 12 months before we both go back to 5 days a week as DiddyDragon will be at school.

"His line manager seems to be more amenable to him being out of the office for one day a week but the HR department seem to be determined to go back on the agreement."

I would be very cautious about taking that at face value. HR don't make the decisions, management do. If his line manager is fine with it, why is he not telling HR that the arrangement will stay in place? If his line manager is too junior to do that, why is the next manager up not doing that?

Check your house insurance policy for legal assistance which covers employment disputes. We're having to use this just now and it's proving invaluable

That's a good point about the line manager. Frankly I've had enough of the whole lot of them & have lost count of the ways the company has screwed him over in the last decade. DH needs to find a new job, but it's not easy in the current climate. He also needs to stand up for himself a bit more but he finds that really difficult.

At the moment he's retreated into his metaphorical shed & I can't get him to engage in a sensible conversation about it at all. It's driving me crazy!

Thanks to you all for your thoughts; it's really appreciated.

It's a very common thing to do, for management to blame HR for things. My clients do it sometimes, saying "it's our HR consultant saying we 'have' to do that." It's fine with me where it helps maintain reasonable relations in a difficult situation, and my clients are mostly small businesses so that's very much a factor. I don't mind being the bad guy as I'm not involved directly with the staff anyway.

But don't be under the illusion that HR would be able to (or be remotely bothered enough to) force this kind of management decision in a business.

In fact it's far more likely to be the other way round. Where HR saying the employer 'have' to do something it would be where it is for the employee's benefit, where they've told management the law says employees have x or y protection which prevents them doing something they want to do.