Flex work request denied- appeal

[Namechange1234589]

Hi I am after some advice regarding my appeal letter for the rejection of my recent flexible working request. I asked to return from my 2nd maternity leave on 0.7 hours which has been rejected with no counter offer made or any discussion at all with employer offered to explore other options.
After my first mat leave I returned to this same.role 0.8. Once my eldest began receiving her 30 free hours I returned to full time work for a few months before commencing my second maternity leave.
During the time I worked this role 0.8 there were never any complaints from employer or line manager nor any other colleagues or stakeholders (that I am aware of) and I believed I was doing a great job and still do.
Since submitting my flex work request I was informed by a colleague (also currently on mat leave) that she had been told by her line manager that someone at senior level told her line manager the top dog no longer wants anyone working the role my colleague and I work part time. Both she and I have previously worked the role 0.8 as well as full time.
There are only 7 of us who work this role within the business. 6 of us are female. Having looked at Unison guidance it seems that if the boss is unofficial taking a blanket approach to the working pattern our role can do the this could be indirect sex discrimination? The issue of course is that in rejection letter the boss has listed detriment to quality of provision for 3 separate things as reason for rejection.

The appeal will go straight to the CEO of business. Should I include in my letter that I am concerned my request wasn't fairly considered because it seems anecdotally the boss has told the senior team that he doesn't wish anyone in this role to be part time anymore? Or because I only have anecdotal evidence of this being said ( although it has come from a trusted source) should I leave it out entirely and not mention at all in the appeal meeting either?
My DH says don't put it in writing as it will look like I am a sour grapes person spreading gossip.
I genuinely feel this is discrimination though and how else do I prove it without notifying the CEO of this comment?

Thanks if you've made it to end of this post!

HR Person here, your thread is hard to read but....

they listed detriment to quality of provision.

Are you able to write a case to show how your request won't impact service provision? I would stick to the facts and really try and how you can make it work.

p.s sorry your boss sounds like a twat.

Sorry, I too have found it difficult to follow your OP, therefore can't comment either way?

What work did you drop moving from 1.0 to 0.8?
What work did you pick back up moving from 0.8 to 1.0? What work could you drop moving to 0.7 and who would do this?

You need to evidence how it worked before and how you working PT would benefit your employer - or at least does not put them at a disadvantage - rather than how it would benefit you personally.

Don't claim discrimination unless you have good evidence and are prepared if necessary, to go all the way, including suing and leaving. You asked how you can prove it. If you have to ask, you don't have good evidence. I doubt any employee would stick their neck out and verify what you said. You will find people melt away when you make such requests.

If you claim discrimination, even if you get your 0.7, your card is marked with 'top dog' who was accused of saying it. It is not the smartest thing to make serious allegations like discrimination without evidence that will stand up in an employment tribunal.

I'd be professional and just respond based on how this arrangement does not affect the business, that there is a precedent for it and not based on what you want or heard.

I also think you are focusing on the wrong thing. To make a credible appeal you need to challenge the basis for your initial request being turned down, so as they said it would be down to quality of provision, you need to show how this would not be the case.

Your accusations of discrimination seems to be based on the department comprising mainly of females at the moment? Your argument is not much more than you are a female that is not getting what you want and therefore it is discrimination.

Likewise I don’t think your anecdote that somebody heard the top dog say that they don’t want anyone working part time really has any bearing. You have been given a reason for the refusal, you need to focus on that.

The comment made by your boss and overheard qualifies as what's called prima facie grounds, so you aren't wrong.

The maternity action telephone line is the service to speak to. They will advise you on being helpful and cooperative as far as you can... and then on your options once you have got your ducks in a row.

Thanks everyone for your responses and apologies for the OP being so unclear. Trying to juggle posting with poorly grumpy baby was tricky.

So further developments are that following the formal refusal of request I emailed again to ask if there could be any further informal discussion around any other options available to me as per the workplace policy on flex working. Boss emailed back to say no, and they hadnt offered a further discussion because there was nothing else that could be offered not 0.8 (which I successfully worked this role at for 2.5 years) nor 0.9. They then put in writing- it is not possible for insert name of my job roles to be part time for the foreseeable future.

Am I right in thinking that now they've put that in writing I am in stronger position to pursue line of indirect sex discrimination? If this is now what boss has decided the working pattern must be for all in my role then they are effectively making the role unavailable/unworkable for anyone with carer commitments and stats show that women disproportionately carry carer burden in our society and therefore this decision will disproportionately impact female staff? Nearly all staff that work this role are female currently.

It all depends on the nature of your job as to whether a blanket rule of full time only is justified. Without that it's hard to know. I worked in hr for years and some roles could not be changed to 4 days a week though we did allow people (male and female) to go to 30 hours per week coming in at 9.45am daily to allow for the school run - clients rarely rang before 10am, if they did we just took messages

So this is a role which in my mind can absolutely be worked 0.8 and precedent has been set by me working it previously for 2.5 years 0.8 and a colleague working it 0.8 for 4 years. The function and nature of our work hasn't changed drastically in terms of what we are expected to deliver and both myself and my.colleague job shared with our deputies for the one day a week we were absent. So deputy stepped up one day a week and took 0.2 of the pay we receive for this additional responsibility we do.

I’m sorry but on what planet does “someone told me that someone else told them that someone overheard something” represent a prima facie piece of evidence? Because in the real world that is called gossip. If the OP wants to rely on this as evidence, then every person in that chain will need to be willing to be named and to attest to what they have said. And in my experience that probably won’t happen. Easy to gossip something, true or not, but pinning your colours to the mast and making an allegation is something else entirely.
OP, I hope you are in a union, but in any case, unless these people are willing to act as witnesses at your appeal and possibly a tribunal, don’t start throwing gossip into the mix. It weakens your case, not strengthens it. Focus on facts – what you want, how that can be managed, and how it continues to fulfil the employers needs. Look at how you can counter the reasons for rejection in a constructive and factual way. That is your best chance of convincing them. And if it saves them money as well, don’t forget to throw that in as money talks for many employers.

Now that you have in writing (versus hearsay re what a top dog said), I would say that your organisation is starting to get onto shaky ground re discrimination. They should consider each request in its own merits and the universal ruling is a bad step for them tactically. That still doesn’t mean that they wont be able to justify declining the request, but a statement that they never allow it for these roles is not good enough by itself.

So, they've specifically said the job role not the person can't be part time. That's not in itself discriminatory. There are plenty of women who can and want to work full time. The job isn't unavailable to all women.

They'd need to have a reason why a job that was done part time now can't be done part time. That can and does happen. Roles and needs from roles can change.

Again it would be helpful what you were looking at changing for the 0.8. You might have more luck offering 5 days but fewer hours.

If not, I mean, I went back to work full time after maternity leave... it's not the end of the world (though expensive)

You will have to build a strong case with data. Remember, the fact you have experience working part time in the role means the business has data and evidence they can use to back up their reason for saying no now. But so do you, so use it.

And, take time to do it properly. I know your post is just a quick one on mn and probably not representative of how you would outline your argument, but you need to be clear, logical and concise, backed up with credible data

I'm confused as to why you requested .7 if previous arrangement was .8. That seems to already jeopardise the request. Was the maternity cover ft? Could the workload and requirements of the role have changed during your ml? Ignore the hearsay, look at what the grounds of refusal are and how you could address them.

Why did you move from .8 to full-time for some months before your second maternity leave? You mention the free nursery hours coming into play but presumably your employer must have had a work-related reason to agree this change and not just the fact that it suited you? If your deputies are stepping up and being paid to provide cover on the days you are not working, what happens to that arrangement when you decide to work full-time? Conversely now they either have a full-time role which is already occupying their time or how are they suddenly expected to provide cover for your role for almost a third of the working week? I know this is a separate issue to the one you mention of potential sex discrimination but to me it sounds as if you and your deputy (and potentially others in the team) are either under utilised or overworked, depending on who is working what percentage at any time.

OP: Am I right in thinking that now they've put that in writing I am in stronger position to pursue line of indirect sex discrimination? If this is now what boss has decided the working pattern must be for all in my role then they are effectively making the role unavailable/unworkable for anyone with carer commitments and stats show that women disproportionately carry carer burden in our society and therefore this decision will disproportionately impact female staff? Nearly all staff that work this role are female currently.

I think you are in a stronger position because you now have something to push up against. As other posters said, you still need to build a case why it worked when you did 0.8 and how the role/business has not changed substantially to make that unworkable.

You should email your boss back to ask what is the reason for deciding why it is not possible for your role to be part time for the foreseeable future. What things need to change before it can become part time again. The boss may not answer (as he/she might realise this is now getting legal) but if they do, it is better to make them show their hand first so you know which direction they are coming from and can tailor your arguments accordingly.

I think you went up to full time to increase your maternity pay (or savings for maternity) and it irks them that you now want to drop back down after claiming a higher rate of pay during maternity leave. I’m not saying that’s ok, but I bet that’s what it is.

You went up to full time so in their eyes that means you can do full time and they now expect it as it’s easier for them.

Who will pick up up the 0.1 that you want to drop?

Hi all- hard to answer some of these Qs without totally outing myself and my job role... I may ask for MN to remove this thread when it has come to a natural end.

I work in a school. I am employed as a teacher with an additional responsibility think head of department or similar.
After my first maternity leave I returned to my role, including my extra responsibility as 0.8. This was agreed by previous Head.
I increased my hours in September because my DDs 30 free hours began then and also because it meant I would get full maternity pay. I have also utilised shared parental leave effectively. I'm sure both these things could be irritants to the Head although hard to know.

Head is saying needs of business have changed because of pandemic.
My opinion is no they havent- we aren't in a pandemic anymore and I worked 0.8 right through the pandemic and it wasn't an issue.
When working 0.8 my deputy acted up in my role on day I was absent and received 0.2 of the money attached to my responsibility plus all the money attached to theirs. I never received feedback from deputy or line manager nor anyone else that this situation didn't work nor that part time was having detrimental impact of quality of provision. It all rolled along smoothly for 2.5 years. For a colleague with the exact same set up it rolled smoothly for 4 years.
This set up also didn't cost the employer any more money. Than if I worked full time. It cost them less because they paid my teaching part of my wages 0.8 also and only the additional responsibility cost them at full time rate.

I acknowledge the point that not all women want to or need to work part time. But irrespective of that, making this role suddenly full time only does disproportionately impact carers- statistically whom are more likely to be female.

Re someone being overworked in this scenario- my deputy also received 0.2 of my management time as well as 0.2 of the money for taking on the responsibility once a week.

I think you would have had an easier time going back as .8 as you have proven record than .7. What of you deputy dod not want the .3 now. They do not have to counter propose.

That's a really clear summary- I think that unfortunately there might be a valid business case re the pandemic. You are working in a sector that was particularly affected; with children having greater needs as a result of the pandemic. You are also in a sector that's experiencing significant staffing shortages. I think any successful appeal will need to address these point?

Well I'm not a teacher but I don't understand in any business how you can seemingly decide to up your hours and then reduce them beyond what they were originally and sort of expect everyone to just fit in with that? It sounds as if the increase in hours was only for your benefit, if .8 was working perfectly well who, apart from you with your increased maternity pay, was benefitting from you moving to full-time? Your deputy lost money and the experience of heading up the department on a day a week. Have you considered that your deputy may not be as happy with the situation as you think, just because they haven't said anything? Have you even asked them how they feel about taking back on an increased amount of your role and management responsibility?

The irony of the teacher shortage point is that having jobs with little to no flexibility to accommodate things like our carer needs is what is making so many leave the professions in droves. What impacts quality of provision hugely at any school is high staff turnovers, low morale, inexperienced staff in positions they shouldn't be etc.

Re: the query over deputy's feelings. The nature of our structure means it is a different deputy I work with every academic year. This means that depending on who the deputy is attached to they got the experience of stepping up or not and then the following year they may or may not get that experience. It would be the Head's job to consult them presumably. I cannot consult anyone whilst off on mat leave. I personally believe the opportunity it brings of practical experience of stepping up is excellent and stands them in strong position to apply for promotion when opportunities arise. I would certainly have given my eye teeth for such an arrangement before I secured my current role. Genuine, practical experience of a higher role in a school is very tricky to come by in my experience.

The teaching shortage could actually help you to move to the working pattern that you want in another school? Is there another school that you could apply to for an equivalent role; but make it clear that you were applying for 0.7 FTE?

Oh and apologies forgot crucially to say I would absolutely accept 0.8 again rather than the full time or nothing on the table atm.