Is my manager treating me unfairly?

[Mumoftwodarlings]

I returned from maternity from having my first child in 2020 and requested flexible working for 24 hours per week. This was agreed after initially my manager refusing but HR stating there was no reason to refuse my reduced hours. Because I had reduced my hours my manager said I now had to job share and the lady who had covered my maternity leave would be staying on full time. It was agreed we would both do 18.5 on the job and the remaining hours we would work on project work. Only 5.5 per week for me and 50% of her hours on project work.

I got pregnant again in 2022 and had my DC and have returned to work today from having a year on maternity leave. My job share covered my post whilst on maternity leave and the project hours were not covered.

My manager said today that if I'm on leave then my job share has to cover my hours (as she is full time). This means if she’s on leave I can’t take leave. I said are we not job share? And my manager said we are job share but my hours have to be covered whilst I'm not here. I can’t cover my job shares hours as I’m part time, so her hours aren’t covered if she’s on leave the beginning of the week.

I feel a bit upset about this. Am I overreacting?

Yes but that's not the situation now. You're job share or part of a team. The manager now wants one of you there as much as possible. I think that's fair.

I think it really depends what the job is too. There's only me does my job and while other could do it if needed. Like I wss sick for a few weeks or more, it just doesn't get done if I'm not there and I manage my workload.

So it wouldn't make that big a differrence if 2 people did that rather than one. But then if you're covering staffing of a building or service something then it obviously makes a difference.

So if you book leave can she take leave or does she have to be in?

Thanks - it does make me feel better that this can be normal and i’m probably just over thinking it.

Job share or not, an employer can refuse a request for leave if it adversely affects the business.

It sounds like you have a good set up which fits around your dc.

Whats the issue with leave? Have you booked a holiday and can’t get paid leave? Or were you hoping that if one of your dc were sick (for example) you could take that as leave?

Your employer is within their rights here regarding leave.
Its common to refuse leave if it clashes with another colleague.

Ok, so there are a couple of issues here. If you work for the council you will (or should!) have a clear job share policy. As part of applying for reduced hours you will have to have applied for job share and that will change the nature of your contract. Your job share contract will have something in there about cover - leave, if your job share leaves, that sort of thing. You need to make sure you are on a job share contract if that’s what you’ve been told you’re on - otherwise you’re part time and she’s full time, and you’re simply sharing some of the project work which is not a job share.

In terms of leave, it’s usual for staff who work closely together to take it at different times to ensure business continuity. However, you shouldn’t be penalised for working part time and leave should be approved in a fair and consistent manner.

YOU changed the terms of your employment. This is the consequence.

No, an employee does not/cannot unilaterally change the terms of their employment.

Okay, the employee wanted the change and the employer agreed. Not much difference.

But there isn’t just one person doing the role, there are two so it makes perfect sense to not have you both off at different times. They have met your needs agreeing to this arrangement, you should do the same.

A very big difference - the first one is something that cannot happen by law.

That was then, and this is now. Given that the role was required full-time, they had every right to either refuse the reduction in hours, or make you return for fewer hours (the 18.5) and not bother finding the project work to make it up to the hours that you wanted. Want and get are not the same thing. So they have been very flexible and fair, and you will have to suck it up now. Before they had no choice - one person in the role, so nothing gets done when they are on leave. They have two in the role now, so they can ensure there is some cover for at least part of the week all the time. That's reasonable, fair, and rather common.

The OP is working 24 hours/week.

I think what made me upset about it thinking back was that my manager said my hours had to be covered. It was the wording. She didn’t say we both have to work with each other to ensure the role is covered as much as it can be. It felt rather one sided. There is also another lady on the same level as us under my manager who is going on leave for 3 weeks. I asked who was covering this lady and my manager responded that she had asked her this..

You aren't making things easier for yourself. How other people's leave is covered is between them and their manager, and really isn't your business to question. And she also doesn't have to explain what conversation she has had with the other person doing the same role as you but full-time. Fot all you know she said exactly the same thing - you can't both be off at the same time. She probably did say the same thing. But you are choosing to read it in a particular light. As many people have said here, it is very common, when two people share a role, to refuse to allow both to take leave at the same time.

It feels like you are choosing to be offended by what has been said. Is there something else going on here that is making you more sensitive to what appears, on the face of it, to be perfectly normal?

It’s probably because I’ve been on maternity for a year, it’s a worrying and anxious to return to work after all this time. I’ve worked with my manager a long time to ask questions like this but yes I don’t want to get bothered by things that I shouldn’t be because it’s draining and I’ll just worry about it.

The employer didn’t request the change. OP wanted and OP got. This is the consequence of the change she initiated.

No, she requested the change and the employer agreed to it. The consequence in terms of her leave as a result of this change should have been clearly set out by her manager - as should the terms of her contract (which itself appears very unclear given that there was no signed change to her terms of employment stating that she’s now job share - or not)

I would also expect there to be something from the manager setting out how leave is managed within the team so that everyone is clear as to how leave is approved or not.

You’re right. Public sector managers are well known for being amazing.

I know I’m right.

@SirChenjins I agree, it seems like rules are being made up on the spot and some transparency in communication is needed

Well, that's ok then. Issue settled.

Regrettably, almost everything you have said is "practice" not law, so what might be "right" in any given situation is not actually as clear cut as you'd like to represent. There is, for example, absolutely no requirement in law to issue a new statement of written particulars when someone changes their role / job within an existing workplace. It's certainly good practice to be clear about terms - but not a legal requirement. And it could be argued that the manager is being clear about how leave will operate going forward - she's told the OP exactly how it will work, the OP simply doesn't like what she's been told, which is an entirely different matter. There is no evidence of lack of clarity - the situation has changed because the OP asked for changes which have been agreed, and the manager is now laying down how those changes will operate in practice.

Knowing you are right and being right are really not the same thing. You have an opinion on what ought to be the case. You have no legal backing to say that your opinion is "right". I would agree that there is good practice - but good practice is not a legal requirement.

You would have been correct - but you appear to have misquoted me. Can you point to where I said anything about it being law - other than the bit where I stated an employee is unable to unilaterally change the employment contract? All the rest is, as you say, good practice. If there is a job share policy and the employee has requested to job share which has been approved by her manager then her contract would change and that would be recorded as such - this has not happened. The OP is not job sharing, she is working p/t and sharing a small part of their project based work - which in itself does not constitute a job share.

I disagree obviously with your assertion that there is clarity around the leave allocation.