Certain perks not available to part time workers - is this fair?

[BuzzyBusyBee]

Where I work anyone on a FT contract is entitled to flexi time (very limited core hours, can pick and chose your hours each day, not set schedule needed, can accrue time and take anything up to 4hrs back without manager approval needed). Anyone working PT is not entitled to this (weekly working schedule very fixed, not able to accrue time and take to cover things like appointments - all must be logged and taken as annual leave).

Looking at dropping to PT (32hrs over 4 days) but the prospect of losing that flexibility seems really unfair and is putting me off! No real reason given by manager other than ‘that’s company policy’! Should I be pushing this with HR? Seems very odd as most people who work PT do so because of other commitments (childcare, other caring responsibilities, possibly health issues) and would therefore massively benefit from a bit of flexibility as well!

Just trying to form a plan/argument on how to challenge this.

Sounds to me like they don't want people working part-time.

You could challenge it but I'm not sure how far you will get with it.

www.acas.org.uk/part-time-workers
I think it's against the law to treat part-time workers differently.

I’d speak to ACAS. I believe this could be a form of indirect discrimination and not allowed.

I also think this could be classed as discriminating against part time staff. My workplace does something similar, at least on paper.

I think it's probably discrimination against part time workers and therefore indirectly women.

But I'm sceptical that fighting it would end well unless you want to leave your job. I might politely query it and ask how company policy fits with the law giving the reference to the relevant legislation but I probably wouldn't push it any further.

This is the law - employers can treat part time workers differently when it comes to 'perks' etc in many circumstances.

www.gov.uk/part-time-worker-rights

In theory I can understand why a policy like this exists for full time workers- it’s appealing to prospective employees when there are family friendly available, and it can sustain motivation for those who already work there.

It’s so much more difficult to attend appointments and arrange childcare etc when you work 5 days a week. Part time workers often have more flexibility and options.

As others have said, this is discriminatory against part time workers. Draw their attention to the Acas guidance.

No it isn't necessarily. It is not true that there cannot be differences between full time and part time conditions - as a pp has already pointed out. It is entirely possible to demonstrate sound business reasons why part-time workers have "flexibilities" already that full time workers don't. It is very misleading to boldly state that something is unlawful when it actually may not be at all. Standing up for one's rights when one doesn't have such rights can lead to serious problems.

The OPs best move would be to discuss this with their union to see what the position is and how the employer handles such matters.

But part time workers don’t need to bank time off for appointments because they already have a day off every week for those things.

I'm PT following DC and my workplace has similar rules.

I wanted hours to fit around nursery drop off and school pick up so I have no real need for flexible start/finish times.

FT staff can only take A/L in days/half days while PT staff can take it in hours so if I have an appointment, I just take an hour.

FT staff would have to work more than their contracted hours to be able to take flexi leave for an appointment. Works both ways.

I have never seen this successfully objectively justified in similar circumstances, which is the test that would be applied.
Needing to use annual leave to take time off for appointments while full time colleagues doing the same job do not, on the basis of being part time only, is extremely likely to be covered by the legislation. This is without looking at the potential discrimination aspect regarding the reasons someone may be part time (disability, childcare responsibilities which are more likely to be undertaken by women, etc)

Whilst in theory the employer could come up with an objective justification for this, in practice I agree with others that it is unlikely they would be able to justify forcing part-time staff to take annual leave for appointments but not full-time staff.

The first step is to make a written request for the reasons for this policy. The employer must respond in 21 days. This may be enough to make them realise that they can't justify the policy.

I work in the public sector. This is normal practice in my experience I have seen it taken to tribunal and lost. Three times. On each occasion the case faltered on the fact that p/t workers can make appointments during times that they don't work. To be fair, I don't know if it makes a difference, but the full time terms are that appointments should preferably be in flexi periods and the time made up, and time off with pay is only where that is not possible.

But it the law permits such to happen. Whether the employer can justify it is one issue. Whether the OP wants to paint a target on their back is another. The employer does not have to agree to dropping their hours either.