Flexible working request rejected - help me with appeal please

[Hope1987]

Hi everyone,
I hope to get some help with appeal here. I will try to describe my situation and hopefully it won't be too long 🙂.
I am on annual leave after ML now and in October after informal chat with my manager regarding my coming back on 3 days a week instead of 5 I've got a green light from to apply but he said that despite he's ok with my new working pattern it's HR decision. So I've put my application form on 16/10 and then had a meeting on 20/10. I didn't hear anything from other than they are discussing my case until 23/11 which was outside 14 days to arrange another meeting which was 2 weeks after that. And then I've heard flat no,they didn't give any alternatives, any option, nothing. As the reasons they gave that they can't reorganise work amongst existing staff and that my position works in line with Packaging department that's why they need to have covered shifts 6-2, 2-10 and 9-5, otherwise it will have detrimental effect on performance and and fulfilling customer demand.
The only ground to appeal in my heads are that during my ML they didn't employ any cover for my position, so actual my coming back to work, even on reduced hours will increase capacity of the team, not put any more pressure or extra tasks as they had to work a full year without me. Also packaging department works on 2 shift basis which are covered by my 2 colleagues. There is no one in my team on 9-5 from at leat 2.5 years.
But I not really sure if I could use all these in my appeal as this sounds a bit like they don't need me at all in my department.
I would appreciated any advice. Thank you

ET wouldn't go into detail re: commercial decision, but given one of the considerations would be "did the employer make the decision based on incorrect facts", then, yes, the employer would have to be able to back up the reason, as part of demonstrating they have followed a fair process.

Otherwise all an employer would have to do is say "but it's really busy on Fridays so we wouldn't be able to meet customer demand" , which might be completely untrue, with zero consequence.

I seems that they couldn't make you redundant whole pregnant but are refusing your flexible request in the hope that you leave by not approving it.

The only thing you can do is return full time. It isn't illegal what they are doing. It's just horrible.

What is FIL? do you have maybe by any chance this letter? I know our situations probably are completely different but it will probably inspire in some way and give me some ideas what to write

Father in law.

send me a PM and I’ll email you my letter

I'd also suggest you include in your appeal that you could do it as a 3m trial period given that for the last 12m they've managed 1 person down.

I know it is completely legal what they did and probably I will just come back on full time but will try on appeal in hope they will let me do it even for couple of months

PM sent. Thank you

No one can say if it was unlawful at this stage and with the info, OP. On face value it hasn't been handled fairly IMO, given they've managed 12m one person down, and they haven't considered any alternatives - a number of cases have highlighted that employers not exploring alternatives did go against them, interesting since this doesn't become a requirement for employers until April next year!

I would be careful here and decide what you really want the outcome to be before proceeding. Do you want to be made redundant? Do you need to keep the job? Do you have childcare and support in place for full time?

As you've said there is no legal obligation at all on the employer to change your job to part time and they have behaved fairly with keeping your role during a big redundancy to ensure they don't discriminate against you directly for maternity / indirectly for sex. Giving you the same job and hours you had before mat leave is not 'horrible' - it's standard. Unless you think that you are either being managed out OR you have been discriminated against under EA2010 characteristics or company policy, I've no idea why a tribunal would be mentioned.

If you want to appeal you have to make a business case for it. Presumably their rationale is that they have made 200 people redundant so likely have a recruitment freeze and cannot employ anyone in job share to pick up your work. Employing 2 people to do a ft job is also more expensive than employing one. You need to think about the specific benefits to the business of reducing your hours, not benefits to you.

Sorry I seem harsh but so many people seem under the impression that employers are compelled to accommodate flexibility or part-time. It's not true - they just can't sack you for making the request.

If there is a hiring moratorium, the department may not want to give up the position/hours, even if they have found they can get by without it for now. Circumstances may change and the role really needs to be there, but if the company won’t let them hire anyone, then the existing workforce will face too much pressure.

it may be coming from hr, but a smart department head will fight to keep those seats/hours when a company is downsizing, even if an individual employee gets caught in the middle of the battle.

OP I don't want to sound unkind.

First- thank you for pointing out English is not your first language- it shows.
Second- I hope your thread works as a warning to other would-be mothers going on 1 (full) year maternity leave or longer. Look, you can only do that whilst being prepared your employer WILL eventually prove after one YEAR they can cope and save MONEY without you. So, when you get back making requests, no matter if they are reasonable requests to you, they will seize upon that as your weakness, and work to either force you back to full time or for you to just leave (not redundancy). It's good you can go back full time, but from what you have written, I am not in the slightest bit surprised at their reaction/reply and I would think you naïve if you are surprised.

In terms of appealing- you need to ensure you don't erase the last bit of good will left with your employer lodging an appeal you feel will be rejected as you can't think of what you can say- doesn't sound like you have much to say back, that's why, if you want to go back full time anyway, as you need to be careful employers can make the life of new mums difficult (just not being flexible with you when you ask (all legal) which may still make you just want to leave. (not many employers would give 1 year ML).

@Sweetglossy
one year maternity leave is standard in the U.K., and has been for some years. Companies have to give it.

Yes, it is standard, and companies have to give it- all correct and legal; but as I said (or did you choose to miss my point?) , anyone choosing to take it, must accept the risks that come with it- just as OP has demonstrated on this thread.

And she is not the only one. Countless women regret taking the full year if they really wanted their career (there are some exceptions who have never been affected by time off including for up to 3 years off- they are usually senior and valued for their contributions in their organisations.)

It is clear to most of us on this thread that this employer seems to want to get rid of her, on the cheap.

It

It's why many women make the difficult decision of taking only 3 months or 6 months ML. One lady who continuously warns younger women of this risk only took 2 weeks ML with all 5 of her kids. She is a captain of an industry now.

I had a similar problem when I worked in retail with my manager trying to get me out after two years because I announced my pregnancy.
I actually decided on some professional help because I was completely out of my depth and used this firm: www.sjsdisputeresolution.com.

If you can stand your ground and defend your position you might find that they give up in the face of so much pushback?

I know that they are not obligated to let me work reduced hours but as I spoke with my friend who works in the same company she knows many people who applied before for a part time and always they were giving them some alternatives. I've only got flat "no"

But they are perfectly entitled to give a 'flat no' as long as they have a business reason for it. They don't have to offer any alterative whatsoever. Just because some other people have had that doesn't mean anything - each flexible working application is supposed to be looked at individually.

Thank you for all opinions, I really appreciated them 💗 . I know I shouldn't be surprised or expecting anything. Just when my manager told me he is OK with my request I had lots of hope. If he would say it is not possible I wouldn't even apply. After I've heard the decision he was the one to tell to appeal. But now I am not really sure is there any point to do it.
Is the decision in writing regarding flexible working hours come from manager with his signature?

@Sweetglossy is absolutely correct.
Taking up to 26 weeks ML is known as 'ordinary ML' and a woman has the right to return to her exact same role if she returns after this.
Over 26 weeks is known as 'additional ML' and if a woman takes between 26-52 weeks, she has the right to return on the same pay and level but not necessarily her former role. There may be business reasons, restructuring etc for this.
It's something all women should be aware of. Not an issue in the OP's case because she's been offered the same job but it's important women know the situation should they choose to take additional ML

I suspect your manager is hiding behind HR here. Possibly HR pointed out that he wouldn’t be able to recruit for the other two days and would permanently lose his allowed FTE / headcount but it almost certainly would have been his decision.

I am afraid I am another that thinks the company want you to go but without paying redundancy pay, so turning down the flexible working request is their way of making you resign.

They have to provide a business reason for turning down your request and they have and it really would not be very difficult for them to come up with something that makes business sense. They don’t have to offer an alternative and that they have elsewhere is really not relevant.

I don’t think your appeal is going to be productive, can you consider going back full time?

First- thank you for pointing out English is not your first language- it shows.
You might have some other sound advice in terms of how industry really works vs. how it should work (I only took 6 weeks mat leave with DC1 due to this) but there was really no need to make this comment about OP's English. It's nowhere near as bad as some of the native speakers on here.

I am thinking the same that it was his decision regarding refusing my flexible working request. And now he is the one who wants me to appeal. I feel really sorry that he wasn't honest with me when I asked him about part time working.
I am planning to come back full time, not sure if this works out for our family. But at least I will try and look maybe for part time job somewhere else.
I don't put much hope in appealing but I will give it a try. I've put so many alternatives for them where I am flexible as much as I only can. I was really upset when I've got the decision and couple of days later but now I don't really care what the outcome will be. It won't destroy my mood before Christmas 😁

I am afraid I am another that thinks the company want you to go but without paying redundancy pay, so turning down the flexible working request is their way of making you resign.

I very much doubt this is the case. If they can make 200 people redundant in May but not the OP then why would they do this? They would just make the case for terminating her role. Businesses needing FT employees is not a conspiracy.

I got 3 days reduced from 5 but only by saying it would be for 6 months, then 6 months at 4 days and then back up to full time. It meant that if I left, they still had the budget to offer the role as full time (rather than only part time if they gave me permanent 3 days a week).

I worked, Monday, Wednesday and Fridays full time in order that there was never more than one day in the week when I wasn't there to respond. Although not ideal as I would have loved long weekends and permanently 3 days, it did give me the part time hours I needed to find a decent childcare solution.

oh, come on. do you want to say you are NOT aware companies are PROHIBITED by law from making someone on maternity leave, redundant? you will be the only one if you didn't know this. even common says would show it is not a done thing.

this is why the manager is likely to be lying to op, so his intentions/ attitudes are not known, as otherwise, that can be challenged legally. seen so many bosses just ticking employment challenge boxes, so they would win it if challenged. so much dishonesty being fed to employees.

It was bedtime for me when I saw this last night.

I knew some busybody would jump on this comment which was made in good faith, without adding more, in order not to offend the OP as that was not the purpose of the comment (to offend, as you want to make it) but to show how my advice, which many have found correct was constructed.

I am a lawyer and I knew what to look out for, from the op in order to assist. So, when the OP mentioned it, some posts after the op, that helped. If you didn't know, other than the law which is usually clear cut in these cases, the employer's words/expressions/representations/approach etc to the op were extremely relevant to the advice I could give. Likewise, it helped that OP says what she said as it immediately helped me pin point her issues (as I did, in the way that was helpful to her) and not be distracted by the way she was expressing her problems/wishes/needs/fears, which could be misread, if one did not take account of the fact that she may not express the enthusiasm, interest in the same way as someone who was fluent.. In fact, I could have wrongly read her approach, as a bit reckless and uninvested whilst saying it was important to her, until I saw her comment,

Happy?

Don't get me started on 99% of threads on MN by native speakers. Has the age of 5 years really been the compulsory age at which all British kids (in England at least) must start school? Well, MN doesn't reflect that. However, you can ignore those threads if you feel they are not that important (Op is a young mum needing help!) or if others can manage to read the op's drivel. Also, sometimes you can read some of those threads without many issues depending on what advice they ask. See the difference? If not, I cannot help you.