What constitutes a "good business reason" for turning down flexible working arrangments?

[HeadFairy]

My company is changing the rules on how people are paid in a way which will make it impossible for anyone to get a flexible working arrangement agreed. Does this constitute a good business reason? This is a huge organisation, at least 30,000 employees, and the changes would apply to all of them.

Obviously not being able to spell arrangements would be one of them

Can you explain what the changes are and why you think they mean no one could ever have a change to their working arrangements agreed?

There is a list of specific reasons why flexible working can be refused and an employer must explain how any/each reason applies.

without revealing too much (details identify the company) currently there is a system in place which rewards staff for working flexibly, with little notice for shift changes, and no regular pattern. If staff wish to work set days (to allow them to have regular childcare for example) they are free to sacrifice this extra payment.

Our employer is proposing to get rid of this extra payment so there is no system to recognise and reward those who work irregular patterns. Several line managers have said if this goes ahead they will not be able to fairly offer flexible working arrangements for parents as it will be unfair for some staff to work set days while others have no predictable pattern to their shifst while on the same money. It's not unreasonable to expect this will be true across the company.

I can't see that the new system will make it impossible for anyone to get flexible working agreed. If anything it's better for parents as it means they will not be penalised financially for not being flexible.

It being 'unfair' for some staff to work set days and others not to is not a valid business reason for refusal, and could apply anywhere in any organisation - not just in the circumstances you describe. Managers are obliged to consider each request on an individual basis, and the fact that other staff won't be paid more is certainly not a reason to never agree any.

It might be considered 'unfair' for one person to be able to reduce their hours/working from home etc when other staff can't. Often a parent getting a flexible working request agreed irritates other staff who would like to be able to do the same, but irritating other staff isn't a reason to refuse the request in the first place, and not penalising parents for not working flexibly is a good thing.

(I'm deliberating not addressing the potential question of how fair it is to take away extra pay staff are entitled to as that's not what you've asked)

Your last sentence is actually what's at the core of this. Taking away extra payments for staff who work really unpredictably is at the crux of this. There is a real culture in this organisation that people who work that way get compensated for it. In doing away with it they put line managers in a position of creating an unfairness that wasn't there before, which makes them much less likely to agree to flexible working arrangements.

You've totally echoed my thoughts exactly in that if the company decide to go ahead with these changes then they just have to suck it up that some people will need to work regular hours and will end up being on the same pay as those that don't, but apparently they won't allow that to happen. They will penalise those who are working set hours, rather than rewarding those who work flexibly. It's a subtle difference, but it tilts the scales slightly more towards discrimination in my view.

I'm just about to go in to a meeting with the head of HR and I'm interested in gathering some outside perspective on this.

"They will penalise those who are working set hours" - how will they do that?

To me, this is the point here -> "Several line managers have said if this goes ahead they will not be able to fairly offer flexible working arrangements for parents as it will be unfair for some staff to work set days while others have no predictable pattern to their shifst while on the same money"

I think the Head of HR ought to be concerned at the fact that the change seems to be resulting in managers openly planning to breach flexible working legislation and discriminate indirectly by applying blanket refusal to consider rather than fairly considering each request, and by using reasons to refuse which are not legally adequate.

It won't at all be impossible for flexible working to be agreed under the new pay system. But managers seems to be making it clear that they have no intention of agreeing them.

As a completely separate issue, from the point of view of staff who currently work flexibly and will effectively have a pay cut, they need to refuse to consent to the proposed change. As it's such a big company, I'm assuming there is proper consultation going on, with unions/staff representatives?

Headfairy, you didn't previously say that people who now work set hours will be penalised by having their salaries reduced. Is that what is actually going to happen or is that the rumour mill in operation?

Flowery I've just had my meeting so some things to clarify. I've been told by the head of HR what will happen. Basically all staff will get their extra payments incorporated in their pay, unless they have a flexible working arrangment, in which case they will not, and will never have that money incorportated in to their salary. So effectively I (and others currently with flexible working arrangments) will be earning significantly less than everyone else in my department for the rest of our careers with this company because we have pre school aged children (or some other dependent relative requiring a flexible working arrangement) despite the fact we will be working in the same role, with the same conditions as others who are being paid significantly more.

I said this leaves the company wide open for cases of discrimination, which made him a bit nervous. We are a highly unionised sector so I think the unions wouldnt' hesitate in backing a discrimination case against the company if this went ahead.

The HR chap said currently the company goes above and beyond the law and will consider any flexible working arrangement from anyone if it can be accommodated. They don't ask what the reasons for the application are, even if it's just that the person wants every Monday off because they hate Mondays. It makes our company one of the more forward thinking and employee friendly one around. Effectively line managers will now have to closely scrutinise everyone's reasons for applying and make judgement calls as to which were more valid than others. Currently this doesn't happen because the salary sacrifice makes it less appealing to people who just want every Monday off for example.

So the situation is slightly different to the one I originally considered. But it's in a way worse, as I will be worse off for the rest of my time at my company because I have pre school children on the cut off date and am unable to work fully flexibly at that date.

annh I've pm'd you.

annh The HR man has confirmed this to me now. Rather than workers with flexible arrangements having their pay reduced, they will have the salary sacrifice they have made for a short period of time (for example, while their children are pre school age or very young) will be for the rest of their career, that means effectively even once they've returned to working fully unpredictably and antisociably they will still be earning less than their colleagues doing the same work to the same conditions because they had life circumstances that meant they were unable to work like that at the cut off date.

Hi, im new to mumsnet and looking for some advice. I am returning to work after 9 months maternity leave. During my final days i was told that i couldnt change to part time hours due to my work being unable to support it. We already have one part time member of staff, works 8.30-2.45 daily as her child is 14 years of age. She has been there for 20+ years and her hours were originally fewer than what they are now. I was told however, that she would have to move to full time hours, as the employer couldnt support it. I spoke with my boss and was told that i could change my hours to 9.30-5.30 meaning a 3 hour difference a week, with my wage being reduced to reflect. I supervise the office aswell as hold an additional training role for new starters across the company. The other woman is under my management, and is standard internal office role. I have today been informed that she has been allowed to keep her part time hours, but that i must return full time. I am now working the two positions, full time, for little more than 2k more than the other woman. Is this legal? My daughter is 8 months and i have a 5 year old son also. I was told also, if i ever were to reduce my hours, i would have to give up my supervisor role. It would save me hundreds a month in childcare if i had the reduced hours, and it is really challenging mentally dealig with two children, working full time when her son is so much older, in high school, can look after himself (to an extent) and her only reason for working part time is that she 'cant handle' full time work. Any advice would be greatly appreciated as i dont know where i stand on legal grounds. I feel i have been treated unfairly and dont see how it can be one rule for her, and another for me. Thanks

Sorry in a rush but briefly the fact that someone else in your office has had flexible working agreed is irrelevant to your particular situation and you cannot use that as a basis for appealing your refusal. Also, if this woman has been working those hours for years, your employer cannot suddenly decide to change her hours.

Did you apply formally for flexible working and have it refused for one of the allowable business reasons? What hours/days did you want to work?

I don't see the relevance of you only working for £2k more than this woman. Presumably, that has always been the case and is completely separate to your desire to reduce hours? What are the "two positions" you refer to which you are now covering?