Employer is trying to go back on change of hours agreement

[nocciola]

I really hope someone out there can help with some advice please.
I have been shielding since March and like many teachers I have been teaching online throughout (well beyond normal hours) and home schooling my child who has special needs. I am due to go back into a teaching job next week.
I asked my manager for a change of hours- at present I work 3 full days and 2 half (tho it often ended up being full days). I want to be able to support my child more, and support my parents- my father is very ill and frankly need to have some time for me.It's been a bit tricky because I have had a flare in my own medical condition and am now back on steroids which means my already immunisuppressed condition is now compromised, so really not good My manager agreed to the condensing of the days. This week tho' they have changed their mind and are pressing me to go back to original hours. I have said that the day is no longer available because of commitments. They are continuing to pressure me though and I have got myself into an absolute state over it . If I resign it will really mess us up a family but the idea of going back to what was is not possible and is making me ill but they wont let it go. My gp has said I cant go in to work anyway at the moment because of the steroids but that has made me feel worse even tho i have been terrified about going back for weeks now. Please can anyone advise?

How were you going to condense your hours? Into 4 full days?

Yes.

This is really difficult. Assuming that you have evidence that they agreed to the changed hours, they can't just change them back. But they can take steps to force the change. People mistakenly assume contracts of employment are inviolate. They so aren't. A simple and careful prices can effect massive changes against people's will, and often entirely legally.

I'm not going to say this is foolproof. There's nothing foolproof. But I'm assuming as a teacher that you aren't stupid and know how to use language! So you need to put in writing - everything now goes in writing please - that you are very sorry but you cannot agree too a change from your current agreed working hours to (whatever they have suggested) because as they are aware both your disability, and your primary carer responsibilities for a disabled child and your elderly disabled parent, make that impossible. The message you intend to send, nicely, in a totally non-threatening, and entirely innocuous way - innocently of course - is "do you really want to see three claims of disability discrimination rolled into one case?"

And I assume you are in a union as a teacher?

Sorry, process not prices.

I think you need @flowery or@hermioneweasley because I’m pretty sure there’s absolutely no head of discrimination against someone who is not a party to the employment agreement (the disabled child and mother). You are entitled to unpaid parental leave but a refusal to accommodate working hours to suit your family life does not mean they’re discriminating against your child or parent. Primary career obligations are yours, not the employer’s.
What was the wording from the school around the original amendment to compressed hours? Was it formal contractual amendment or a temporary accommodation while schools were not actually open and therefore had a little more discretion around timing where lessons weren’t delivered live?

@TryAnotherNickname

I think you need *@flowery* or@hermioneweasley because I’m pretty sure there’s absolutely no head of discrimination against someone who is not a party to the employment agreement (the disabled child and mother). You are entitled to unpaid parental leave but a refusal to accommodate working hours to suit your family life does not mean they’re discriminating against your child or parent. Primary career obligations are yours, not the employer’s. What was the wording from the school around the original amendment to compressed hours? Was it formal contractual amendment or a temporary accommodation while schools were not actually open and therefore had a little more discretion around timing where lessons weren’t delivered live?

There is disability discrimination by association. So all you are demonstrating is that you have no idea what you are talking about. There is very definitely a case of discrimination in tradition took someone not party to the employment contract. The OP also isn't asking for leave. They have agreed working hours which the employer is seeking to unilaterally rescind.

I think the OP needs someone who has a clue. It isn't you.

Do you have the managers agreement in writing, over email or something?

@Moondust001 yeah if you have any reading skills you’ll see that I said she needs a specialist (the two linked are both hr professionals) and that I didn’t have a clue, so we are saying the same, just I did it without hectoring / bitchiness or arrogance (no the parent is described as “very ill”, so I’m sure that someone with your superior knowledge would realise that this doesn’t necessarily equate to “disabled” for the purposes of the Act)

@Moondust001 and the last laugh is that associated discrim very clearly doesn’t apply to a reasonable adjustments claim where the employee must be the one discriminated against. Court of appeal authority with refusal to refer up, so pretty clear. Maybe you need a refresher course before claiming such expertise?)
Back to the original request for someone who knows what they’re talking about, as I originally made x

[quote TryAnotherNickname]@Moondust001 yeah if you have any reading skills you’ll see that I said she needs a specialist (the two linked are both hr professionals) and that I didn’t have a clue, so we are saying the same, just I did it without hectoring / bitchiness or arrogance (no the parent is described as “very ill”, so I’m sure that someone with your superior knowledge would realise that this doesn’t necessarily equate to “disabled” for the purposes of the Act)[/quote]
No, you did it in an offensive and insulting way. This is the internet. You don't know what anyone really is, but you choose to rubbish my contribution based on not knowing anything at all. You were bitchy and arrogant. And still are. And I know exactly what the Act says thank you. Still being bitchy and arrogant I see. Because what I said was to very carefully use language. Such as noticing that the OP said father but you decided it was a mother. Or that she wasn't talking about unpaid leave at all.

You are being ridiculous. And don't understand either the law or a strategy.

Dude, seriously- comprehension skills. Op said father, I said parent. You’ve thrown in mother. I understand the law and strategy enough to (a) suggest the experts come along, and (b) ask for more information, because very relevant facts aren’t yet disclosed. You wade in and throw your weight around without even reading correctly. I didn’t rubbish your contribution but said quite clearly that more information was needed and that I didn’t have a clue. So we will agree to differ and hopefully OP will get someone who is able to read, comprehend and advise in a calm manner without thinking this is about personal glory. All this hubris suggests you’re not particularly confident in your skills - attack as a means of defence. Not madly edifying.

Yes, I misread one word in my subsequent responses. However, I stand by my advice and my comments. Nobody is "right" because they have been posting here for years or claim to be something specific. I make no claims, because they can't be verified, but I am more than capable of offering advice on such matters. There is no "right or wrong" answer - that is why there are courts and lawyers. But my advice is both factually correct and a legitimate strategic approach. If someone else has an opinion to offer then that is fine. But your approach was to rubbish my advice, say it was wrong and that the advice of two other people who weren't even on the thread was better. That is deliberately insulting, and you went out of your way to be that way.

Now the thread has been derailed enough so I won't respond to your continued insults. Perhaps in future if you have an actual opinion to offer you could do so instead of rubbishing those who do.

Are you teaching primary or secondary?

Any change in hours should have been agreed and your timetabler informed well before the Easter break. It is not unusual for part-timers to have different slots of year after.

Did you put your request in writing to the Head? Just chatting to your HoD is not suffice.

As a teacher you would be better off posting this in the Staffroom where other teachers could read this. They may have awareness of similar situations and could advise how they approached their HT.

You need to put the issue in writing whether that be in a letter or an email. State clearly when you requested the change and who agreed to it. Explain that regretfully you are not able to make a change. You could explain why ie due to your health and the disabilities of your daughter but I suppose the essential part is that they agreed to your request so are taking the piss by changing their mind at short notice. I am guessing they have a hole to fill on the timetable but that really isn't your problem.

Yes but the head has to agree any changes not a head of department. Did you follow the procedures outlined in the school policy docs?

Being responsible for disabled family members protects you against discrimination, although it does not entitle you to reasonable adjustments, those only apply if you are disabled yourself.

Therefore the options in terms of a discrimination claim would be of either direct discrimination or harassment. I think it would be a stretch to argue that going back on an agreement for adjusted hours was direct discrimination - there's nothing to indicate that your family's disabilities are the reason for this change of mind. And it doesn't sound like harassment either.

I think the strongest argument legally will be that the new hours are contractual. I assume these are new hours rather than established hours, so it will be about whether you have sufficient evidence that those were confirmed, therefore contractual.

Changes agreed as a result of a flexible working request are automatically contractual - was it that or was it an informal conversation? If so, was it confirmed in writing, with a start date, details of impact on pay, etc?

Therefore the options in terms of a discrimination claim would be of either direct discrimination or harassment. I think it would be a stretch to argue that going back on an agreement for adjusted hours was direct discrimination - there's nothing to indicate that your family's disabilities are the reason for this change of mind. And it doesn't sound like harassment either.

I don't disagree. But there is obviously a difference between whether you have enough evidence to mount a legal claim; and whether you can convince an employer that they don't want to find out. Many, if not the majority, of public sector employers are loathe to let something get to the stage of finding out, and on a simple matter of working hours, unless there is some real imperative to not maintaining an agreement to changed hours, they are unlikely to push it.

Side stepping the issue of discrimination, why do you think they have changed their minds? If you are condensing your hours, that could mean that you would be able to cover for another? Are they having difficulty covering your role?

Although you do don't have to solve their staffing issues, it seems to me that it's more of a logistical issue than anything else...

Unless they are trying not to set a precedent of everyone wanting to do condensed hours?