request for flexible working - how far in advance?

[lisasimpson]

I verbally asked my line manager about wanting to change my hours when DS1 starts school in January. (I want to do the same amount of hours but spread it over more days)
At this stage I did not know there was a formal procedure. His manager has come back saying that she has not got a problem with it (in fact business wise it would be preferable) but HR have told her 'not to commit to anything this far in advance' as who knows what the business requirements will be in six months?

As much as I can appreciate that, it's not much help to me if I need to a) arrange a change in nursery hours b)need to find another job if they reject the application.
As far as I can see the formal application does not mention any minimum/maxiumum time before that you can apply. Or in effect does what they are saying constitute a refusal in itself?

Apparently from an ACAS point of view, these things take minimum 4 months to set up. SO they should be 'encouraged to start process soon'.

hi Lisa

The only time constraints are that once you have made a request, your employer has to arrange a meeting to discuss it within 28 days, and then notify you of their decision within another 2 weeks after that.

Although it may not be as convenient for you, it's not really a surprise that your HR department are not willing to commit this far in advance. Although your manager is happy, they are right to say that a lot can change in 6 months in terms of business requirements.

This definitely does not constitute a refusal, but is a reasonable request to apply at a later date. As your manager is happy in principle, I wouldn't worry too much, as unless there is a significant change in circumstances, she is unlikely to change her mind. I would just ask HR to give you an earliest date that a formal request will be considered.

thanks, I can see both sides of this but our place has a habit of changing managers so I can't guarantee what's ok now will still be ok with the next one!
I'll probably just getting too carried away though worrying about it yet.

If managers change quite frequently where you work that could be another reason HR are reluctant to commit...

Give it another couple of months and then try again, they will hopefully have a clearer idea of business requirements then, and try not to stress about it in the meantime!

Sorry to confuse you, but I feel differently to flowerybeanbag. Esp if managers change, then I do think you should attempt to persuade HR to start it now. Use the fact that you have a supportive manager, to encourage HR to start it now. Pander to them, say you appreciate that things change, etc etc.
But that is just me.
I apreciate it is stressful. Hope things work out. Try not to stress.

Yep, fair enough oblomov. Unfortunately I am hampered by coming from the point of view of sympathy for the HR dept and their business planning

I would just add Lisa if you do that but still don't get any joy, you can use the opportunity to make sure you get a firm date out of them when they will consider a request. Then be all ready to march in there on that date with your request all ready.

I also think you should get the agreement in writing as far in advance as possible. When I applied to go down to 4 days per week after maternity leave (slightly different situation, I know) I made the mistake of mentioning to my boss when I went on maternity leave of my intention but not actually applying formally until some months later. It took 7 months after I submitted my form for the approval to finally come through (almost 3 months after I had returned to work).

thanks everyone, I have printed off the guidelines for her - which were on the company intranet so she can see what's involved. I think I may as well apply formally now and see what happens - given that it might go to appeal etc.

The thing is Flowerbeanbag, is that a lot of people do not realise what an HR dept does.
Employees think that the HR dept is an employee helpline dept. But a Human Resources dept is set up to protect / look after / etc the intersts of the COMPANY. Not the employee. The company. And what may be in the interests of the company is not necessarily in the interests of the employee. HR does not take the employees side in theses cases. They take the company's side. Becasue that is what they are employeed to do. Employees don't realise this.
Many appreals are refused. Many then resolved. The 28 days and reply within 2 weeks, is the just the very initial stages. ACAS advise to allow a minimum of 4 months , for the whole process. Depending on the objections, is is not uncommon for these things to take 6-7 monhts.
People need to be aware of this.

Some good advice already but I don't think anyone has mentioned that you are only entitled to 1 application in 12 months - don't rush in as if they reject it now they do not have to consider another until this time next year which will be too late for you.

It is a careful balance of not leaving it too late - for you to make your arrangements - and doing it too early - so the Company rejects itas they anticipate change in the meantime.

Only you can judge the culture and current business situation and pick the best time. From what you have said I would discuss it with HR, tell them you appreciate the problems but explain your concerns re Childcare etc. then try to get a compromise - say apply in a month/6 weeks. Remember your Manager already agrees so it should just be a paperwork exercise unless he/she is replaced in the mean time.

I discussed mine 6 months before returning to work but have only just got it signed and sealed 2 months before my return. 4 months is fairly common (informal discussions, getting verbal agreements from Directors, then formal application, 28 days to consider, then 2 weeks for them to put it in writing etc etc!!!!) It feels like forever!
(As I wrote the procedure I suppose it's my fault though!)

Sorry this is a bit long - just want you to be fully aware of the implications of rushing a formal application.

er, yes Oblomov, but rather than put it like you have I was just trying to give Lisa a bit of understanding about why an HR department might be reluctant to commit to anything at this stage.

Sorry, but you came across as a bit patronising in your last post

I never realised that callmecautious.
I work 2 1/2 days a week. Ds(3.5) will start school next Sept.
Earlier this year dh got a new job nr Bournemouth. I wrote a letter to my manager, just asking to discuss possibilities of working from home, for some of the time( we live in Surrey). I got a letter of refusal from HR. I never pushed it, because the job in Dorset didn't work out and dh got a job nearer to home.
I am now wondering if my letter was taken as an 'application'.
I have just changed my days, from a monday to a wednesday, because of nursery closing. But my manager was fine with this - it actually suits him better.
Next year I will have to ask to extend the number of my days, but shorter hours, to accomodate achool. And I was thinking of trying the old work at home issue aswell. Now not sure whether to do them seperatly or together.
Have just read that back and I sound like a nightmare employee. Oh dear.

Sorry Lisa - slight hijack here!
oblomov - An application has to state that it is an application under your rights to work flexibly. So unless you did this you should be alright (on a technicality!)
It sounds like they are rather good already so you should be OK. Have a chat to your Manager a bit nearer the time and test the ground first. I would then put it all in one application, if they object to a part of it you can negotiate at appeal to get them to agree something.
The key is to have some flexibility yourself if possible, that way you can back down on something to show willing if really neccessary. The whole thing is really an exercise in negotiation so always have one "card" you are willing to fold on.

Having said all this - the 1 a year is statutory requirement, your Company may be more lenient in their own Policy.

Thank you ever so much callmecautious.
Sorry for the hijack Lisa.

Flowerybeanbag, I am very sorry if I came across as condescending. I certainly don't think of myself as superior in any shape or form. I must not be expressing myself correctly. I have been MNetting alot recently. Maybe I should take a break.
Nomdeplume called me snug, the other day, so clearly something is wrong.
I only meant that I was totally naieve / unaware and always thought that HR was where an employee went to get help. I was then informed by my previous HR Dept, that HR was there for the interests of the Company. I did not know that. And many people I have talked to since, didn't really grasp that either.
I just wanted to let Lisa know that. I am very sorry if I treated anyone as inferior.

no worries oblomov! A good HR dept can be both - where an employee goes to get help and also working in the interests of the company.

Tricky balancing act though and sadly many don't achieve it well, sorry that's been your experience!

Flowery, maybe we should start another thread, instead of hijacking Lisa's. Becasue I am actually very intrigued. Now before we begin, I must warn you that I can be a bit black and white I have actually never had much to do with HR myself, so its not that I am talking sour grapes. But in its nature, do you not think that trying to achieve that balance is almost impossible ? Very, very basically : businesses MUST be driven, professional, kind of ruthless really. They must look after the priorities of the business, FIRST. So if an employee, wants more flexibility, more money, more, well anything. NORMALLY, that does not really benefit the company in a major way. Yes it someone desperatly wants training, that DOES benefit the company.
But what I am saying is that on a very basic level, employees interests are not normally compatible with the companies interests. HR must look after the interests of the company, first, before the employee. IT MUST. Becasue that is what the business needs.
Do you think that is too simplistic ?

What I mean is, if the company decides, that they must, for the benefit of the compnay, bring in a change. And it benefits the employees, makes them happy, then that is great. But if it does not benefit the employees, does not make them happy, then the company must still do it, because that it what the company requires. Company interests must come before employee. Even if it is very harsh, eg 100's of redundancies.

Could be a little bit simplistic I think. Yes basically company has to come first definitely, and sometimes that does mean being harsh, and in cases of redundancy etc there is no middle ground.

However that doesn't necessarily mean HR can't also be somewhere employees go to for help and advice, and sometimes there might be a bit of middle ground.

You would never advise anything that goes directly against the interests of the company of course. Hmm trying to think of an example!

You mention if someone wants more money. Obvious quick and easy answer in interests of company would be to come up with a reason for saying 'no'.
But a manager might not know about other comparable salaries within the organisation, or going rates for that role, and HR might take a longer term view and persuade the manager that granting the request might be in the longer term best interests of the company, or might avoid a problem later.

So ultimately best interests of the organisation come first, but (a good) HR team can also give good quality advice and support to the employees without jeopardising that.

Occasionally that means subtly talking the employee round so that they think what is in the best interests of the organisation was their idea! (shh!) Or it means just listening. This way you are giving advice and support while sometimes massaging to achieve best outcome, rather than just saying yes or no to requests. Also encouraging a culture where e'ees are comfortable coming to HR for support can be beneficial to the organisation as HR then have more knowledge about what is going on and advice to management is more informed, and also this way can avoid use of formal grievances etc if there is an informal way of resolving a problem by advising an employee how to achieve that.

Also, a good and influential (ie not all)HR team want to achieve best practice within the organisation they work in. This might mean advising management to implement policies or practices that cost money, or time, i.e.not directly in best interests of organisation in a black and white sense.

All this obviously depends on the culture of the organisation, how influential HR is, (often not very), and how open the organisation are to longer term suggestions.

And just to add, ideal scenario is:
HR person joins organisation, gets a couple of quick-wins for management usually in terms of saving huge amounts of cash asap, or solving a v tricky problem quickly, establishes credibility, then has ear of management and is able to get some good things for employees as well.

Result, managers think how wonderful HR is, we will include them in all our planning and business decision, hence will manage people better and avoid problems/tribunals/recruit better people, therefore improve performance and save more money.

And employees think, ooh, this HR person is good, he/she got us x benefit, we now trust them and will discuss things with them and we also think management are not so bad after all.

Everyone's a winner, luvvly jubbly!

Thankyou flowery. I found it very informative. I can conclude form this, that most HR dept in companies I have worked for have been a bit poor. My one at the moment is considered to be a bit of a joke, a bit oldy schooly. I'll come and work at your company, it sounds much nicer
Saying that I love my job, it is well cushy.

lol oblomov! If you have a cushy job you love I'd stick with it, think they are even more unusual than my description of an ideal scenario HR dept!!