Change in Flexible Working and WFH

[IceniSky]

I was granted flexible working since I returned from maternity leave 6.6 years ago. I have done various forms of this over the years, and currently work hours that enable me to pick up DD two days a week by WFH or to get home early to take DD to clubs and do homework the other days.

I have an updated contract to reflect this but it doesnt call out WFH only flexible hours.

My office location was moved 5 minutes from DDs school to 45 minutes if I leave at 0615 in the morning or 1.5 hours if I leave at 7.

I have been WFH on and off for 6.6 years but my last manager agreed I could do this several days a week and during holiday time after the office move. This has been for 2 years.

I've been flexible and contact able with my team.

There has now been a massive reorg following a new executive being recruited into our area. He is about the 6th one in 5 years. He wants to put stop to WFH and potentially flexible working.

I've been a top performer.

Anyone have experience of this? I would have to leave the job otherwise I'd never see my daughter. It's a STEM role that is specialised.

He wants to put stop to WFH and potentially flexible working.

Has he said why?

Better collaboration, although we are split across regions and countries.

My team is split across about 4 countries and more offices within those countries. In the wider department and company, I work with people all round the world every day. We collaborate by email, instant messenger, conference calls and video conferences and so on. Meeting people face-to-face does make a difference, but it's not practical most of the time, and modern tools means it's not necessary. I've seen many colleagues' dining rooms, spare bedrooms and attics behind them on conference calls. We have to work flexibly to make working across different timezones work (and doing out of hours technical updates.)

I would think less flexibility would impede collaboration, not improve it, and I'd be building an argument around this point, around how it is more productive.

I would also look at custom and practice and whether that could mean your current patterns of WFH mean they have become part of your working terms because of how long you've been working that way. That doesn't mean you can't agree to something like always being in the office on Wednesdays for the team meeting or whatever.

And I'd also be getting my CV updated, just in case he refuses to accept work is an activity not a place.

Introducing blanket policies of no WFH and no flexibility is likely to be indirect discrimination, as it is more likely to negatively impact women than men, as women are more likely to have caring responsibilities. Any request for flexibility should be considered on its own merits individually, with no blanket 'we don't do this' arrangements.

So a significant change in policy/terms and conditions that includes blanket bans on flexibility is definitely something to push back on on the basis of discrimination if more women are likely to be negatively affected.

Aside from that, a working pattern (including WFH) that has been consistently in place for two years would be established as contractual by custom and practice even if it is not explicitly stated in your contract.

I would ensure you hear any concerns about collaborative working, and participate in discussions/be open to ways to improving collaboration, but also stick to the fact that your current working pattern is your terms and conditions, therefore your consent is required to change it.

You describe our set up. It is a large organisation and I wont be the only one it impacts. The affect of all the additional cars on the road 5 days a week will be a negative too.

We collaborate fine with the tools you mention, I've managed people from different time zones while finishing at 1500 and made it work because on days of WFH days I'll go back in the evenings to my laptop.

The area is only about 1/5 female as technical male dominated area, most work part time. In fact, I sing this companies praises as it enabled me to continue in the role as a working mother. I even got a promotion while working flexibly.

I'd have to cancel DDs classes and we'd have to put her into wrap around. At the moment we can juggle as DH works from home on several days too.

Your current t&c's are your current working oattern op. If they want to change that they have to demonstrate why and there is an indirect sex discrim argument for you to run up stop them. His idea sounds rubbish and is likely to lead him down a very difficult path especially if women make up only 1/5 of the workforce I'd push back on this as hard as you possibly can.

Okay, so I have a call with HR on Thursday and looking also to see if I need to join a union. I'm not sure about that point.

My contract says flexible hours but WFH not in contract, was just granted the last 6 plus years, with an increase last years after office move.

Most unions won't deal with problems that already exist. My union won't take on an issue until you've been a member for at least 3 months unless there are exceptional circumstances, and I don't know what would count as that.

(I was very glad of my union membership last year, though, so I would recommend joining in any case.)

Have my call with HR tomorrow. Bit nervous.

Good luck!

How did you get on op?

They cant change my hours but they want me to find out any comms that agrees me WFH overwise they could change that. It was on my flexible working forms but I'm struggling to find it from 7 years ago.

IANAL but I believe it doesn't matter that your contract doesn't specifically mention WFH - if it has been the established custom & practice for you to WFH over an extended period then that is de facto part of your Ts&Cs of employment even if never written.

However, employers can and will change Ts&Cs to reflect business need. They have to run a consultation process but ultimately if they say the business need is for X then that will usually happen by hook or by crook.

Your only hope to avoid this would be to get together with the other women who work from home, and corporately put in a formal request for an equalities impact assessment to be carried out regarding the proposed phasing out of working from home, as you are concerned that it will disproportionatly disadvantage workers with protected characteristics and might therefore be illegal discrimination.

Thing is, there are a handful of women in the department. The do all however (or those with children) work flexi / part time etc. Can it be indirect discrimination when it impact other parents ? People with life limiting illnesses? People with SN children? People with sick parents ? We will all be impacted. I've just hired someone because we could WFH. They live 1.5 hours away is leave early. They converted from contract to permie in my team based on these conditions.

Being a carer is also a protected characteristic (not directly - the protection against discrimination for age and disability extends to protect the carers who need reasonable adjustments to allow them to provide care)

If some affected people are male that doesn't stop it from being a sex discrimination issue as the majority of those affected are female.

The majority affected are male. The majority of the department WFH a day plus a week. It is a team of 300 split across 2 countries. It is male dominated that is why it will impact more men. It was a forward thinking organisation that enabled families to function. They want to encourage women into this sector.

I will push however.

The majority of those taking advantage of the current policy are men because it is a male dominated sector. That isn't the question.

The question is: if WFH is stopped altogether, what proportion of those with caring responsibilities protected by antidiscrimination legislation (mums of young children, anyone either sex with disabled or elderly caring responsibilities) will therefore be forced to quit or reduce their hours? And what proportion of those without such responsibilities will feel forced to do likewise or will they be able to rejigg things without too much trouble?

So: say there's 90 male employees, 9 of whom have caring responsibilities and currently WFH and 10 female employees, 6 of whom have caring responsibilities and currently WFH. It's still sex discrimination because it affects 60% of the women but only 10% of the men, and it is affecting those protected under disability and age-related carer antidiscrimination anyhow.