Is this unfair treatment? harassment?

[needhopeandluck]

Company policy says employees need to work from the office one day a week and that presence will not be monitored.
It also says that this requirement does not apply to part timers.
I work part time and I have been told by my manager that I have the obligation to be in the office once a week. Also my presence is being monitored in writing.
My commute is basically half the time I am meant to be in the office working, so a long one.
I would not have cared a few years back, but now I have a toddler with special needs and I find it stressful to be away from him for 9h hours.
I have asked HR about why I am told something which is in contradiction with the policy and the answer I got was that there are benefits to coming in around bonding with colleagues and that they have made accomodations around the hours I could come in.

Is this ok? It just feels unfair.

Y, sorry things have been difficult, but with the info in your update you’d be doing yourself no favours complaining about the requirement/monitoring.

With kindness, I don't think they are being unfair or harassing you.

It sounds very hard for you balancing childcare and work, but even you have said work have been understanding. One day in the office is not a big ask in response.

It sounds like being in the office would be a way to be focused, with support if you need it

I’d just come in the easiest way for them to resolve is just do a new policy about PT
under the ruse of making it fair to everyone PT and FT you all have to come in at some point

Some more info:

• requirement to be in the office came before PIP
• I actually deliver less when being in the office because of all the background noise
• while they are flexible, I am flexible too: I go on calls outside my working hours, work at the weekends when there is a deadline, etc.
• no one is counting the hours I am working, that is not the point of me being in the office; that is not what they are trying to check; it is not that kind of a job
• no one is monitoring what I am doing in the office; I could literally be on facebook all day while there, no one would know
• PIP is not related to poor attendance; we have all worked from home in the past 2 years; PIP is a result of poor performance caused by personal circumstances and the company knows that

May I please ask for informed opinions to be shared only? I respect everyone has an opinion, but that does not really help me to be honest.

What would an employment lawyer or someone in HR say?

I am asked to do something which is in contradiction with the company policy (part time workers are exempt from coming to the office...that is black on white)

My attendance is monitored, but that does not apply to other colleagues, be it FT or PT.

Eee op. Ok I’d assume the requirement to be in th4 office is pip related. They are trying to get you back on plan,and want you there for that. I think with all the difficulty you’ve faced I am not sure arguing now you don’t wish to come in is in your favour, you will be aware they can just update the policy. In addition, you are trying to get out of it on a technicality. A technicality they can remove tomorrow. It is better to show willing till the pip is a distant memory.

I cannot see anything you have written here that is "unfair" in a legal sense.

From an employment law standpoint, part time workers cannot be treated less favourably than full time workers. You are being treated equitably, irrespective of what the organisation's policy says - they can easily change that as long as it's not unlawful. Asking you to attend the office on the same basis as full time workers wouldn't be treating you any less favourably, so I cannot see any issues with that.

Why are you fixating on this? You agree that there are performance issues to be addressed, so going into battle with your employer about something that is fair and lawful isn't going to help your case. Refusing a reasonable management instruction will just give them more options to terminate your employment.

I would expect that the initial request to attend the office was an informal step to address your underperformance. When that was insufficient, they initiated their formal performance management process with a PIP. As part of that the attendance requirement has been emphasised.

It sounds like perhaps this workplace is no longer a good fit for you if you live so far away that you are struggling with the commute. I don't see anything here that makes that your employer's problem.

I can understand you may feel frustrated or disappointed about where you find yourself, but I don't understand what you are hoping or expecting to achieve by fighting them about this. It's not going to supplant the PIP - which you already acknowledge is legitimate - but it is likely to poison your employment relationship.

PIP was not raised in the performance review meeting, but only a few weeks later after I butted heads with my manager about something and I clearly annoyed her.

Also, do you not think you're repeating the same mistake by kicking up a fuss about this now too?

They have been really accommodating of you in a variety of ways. In exchange you are required to deliver a certain level of performance, which you haven't. Instead you seem to keep picking fights. You need to fulfil your side of the employment contract too.

If you want to stay in this job then you need to take a step back from your feelings of unfairness and focus on what you need to do to re-establish constructive working relationships with your colleagues and to deliver the level of performance expected.

Surely what's unfair legally is the fact that part timers aren't expected to go into tge office at all but full timers are. I agree with others, show willing and get off the PIP and then hopefully the requirements will lessen again as its obvious you are doing your job well.

There is nothing unlawful about what they are asking if you. You are not being treated unfairly compared to full time workers, they are following their performance disciplinary process and it’s a fair request. Hr wouldn’t say anything different. The policy can be altered for individual needs, and it’s fairly common for an employee to be requested to come into the office more if there are performance issues. It sounds like they have been fair and accommodating and even now they are only requesting one day a week. I don’t think there is anything for an employment lawyer to pick up on here at all.

I’d say that if you don’t want to work with them on this and cooperate with their fair request, then your job may be on the line. If you really don’t want to cooperate then it may be best you look for other jobs.

Update: Just off the phone with ACAS. After giving them all the details, they say that we can look into disability discrimination by association (as I am a caregiver) and constructive dismissal, and they can step in to help.

Almost nobody wins a constructive dismissal case.

It is extremely difficult to meet the legal threshold for that. If you continue to work somewhere after the alleged "breach" you will likely be treated as having accepted it and your claim will fail.

You will need legal advice before making any decisions. The Acas helpline is not legal advice.

What type of disability discrimination? That is also difficult to evidence the legal tests for that, depending on what type. They've made all kinds of adjustments for you, how exactly are you going to evidence disability discrimination?

The Equality Act doesn't stop employers terminating employment if someone cannot perform.

If you have decided that you want to walk away from this job and get into a legal fight with them then you should speak to an employment solicitor asap.

What are you even trying to achieve here?

OP, if you are in a union they may be able to offer some helpful advice.

I think your bigger issue here is being on a PIP, as if you are not adequately performing then your employer has a valid case to dismiss you. Is the PIP 'smart' and when is it due for review?

OP - I’m a Head of HR. My take on this is…

Asking you to go into the office is possibly an unreasonable request given you have been fully WFH for several years and the policy states you can be fully remote. However it’s also important to consider what your contract states on this point.

I find it really odd that they have exempted part time workers from any obligation to go into the office when everyone else has to (particularly given you say are the only part timer).

There is a very high bar for demonstrating harrassment/discrimination or constructive dismissal. I’m really not sure that asking you to go into the office 1 day per week would suffice, particularly as you’ve said you’re happy to go in and as they have a rationale for wanting to monitor your performance more closely.

If the requirement to be in the office came before the PIP, what have they said is the rationale for wanting you in? Perhaps to align with all the other staff who have been asked to come in 1 day per week?

Moving onto the PIP, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for them to performance manage you if I’m honest, you say yourself that your performance has suffered. It sounds as though they have been quite understanding so far but that now they need you to step up and demonstrate that you can deliver.

Could you be clearer on what you think the discrimination is here?

I’m surprised at this, however the wording is key, look into does not mean there is a case here, so it seems they have not said that’s what this is, simply they have said they can look into it, based on your request for them to do so.

howver I cannot see how it is discrimination or constructive dismissal if you’re being treated equally to all other employees who have to come in. It makes no sense,

your employer simply needs to update their policy.

i would advise you looking for another job and quickly if you need to work, i cannot see how this is sustainable for your employer.

What nonsense some people talk on here. Of course it is unfair. Other part time workers are not required to go into the office and are not being monitored. Only op is being asked to do so. Wfh is just as effective as working in the office and if they are going against company policy then it is unfair. I think you should arrange a further meeting with HR to help resolve this. There is no reason your performance will change whether you are in or out of the office.

Ah I see. Yes. They need to monitor everyone

It sounds like you have had good advice from ACAS. Just be careful about what outcome you expect from taking formal action.

It sounds like your company has been very flexible with you during a really difficult time in your life. It also sounds like there might be times in the future when you will rely on their good will. If you raise a grievance etc. and end up leaving, will you find another employer that will be as understanding? You will also have less protection in your first two years of employment.

I totally understand your perspective but I can also see theirs. Can you compromise where you go into the office once a fortnight instead of once a week? And ask for the monitoring to stop unless it's part of your PIP?

Please read the thread. She is the only part time worker.

More detail: what I have not included in my original post was that I have been rele tlessly harrassed by my manager since beginning of the year. She is trying to find fault in everything I do. Literally getting down to why I have a rescheduled a meeting twice (with 8-10 attendees when people flagged they could not attend although their diaries looked ok in outlook). We are in a place where I go to the office and we talk over email. So being in the office is certainly not more productive, rather toxic. I have flagged this issue to HR a couple of times already. Which is why I am looking into a grievance.

In fairness, that's pretty important information!

ok Your view maybe harrassment, her view maybe a poor performer having to be micro managed on a pip. You will need to raise a grievance to see how the company decides. I’m sorry but I suspect it will be on the managers side.

i think they will move to termination, a pip is often the first step in managing someone out, and you do not appear to be engaging.

if you need the money, you need to start looking for alternate employment now.

I suspect that HR will not find in your favour in this grievance if what she is doing is based on managing poor performance. Is there anything else going on that could be deemed harrassment? How is her behaviour towards you generally?

I think you do need to try to see this from your managers perspective too - you had several months where you were not working at all, followed by several months where you were not fully working/focusing because of juggling childcare. You say they have been flexible throughout this time, is it really unreasonable now that you have childcare sorted for them to expect you to step it up.

PIPs do often end in termination, but I have seen many people turn it around too. I think it’s up to you whether you go with it and try prove yourself and rebuild your reputation, or call it a day and look for something else.

you’re not helping yourself. If you need to keep your job putting in a grievance against your manager and complaining informally to HR (who are there for the employer) about the requirement to attend the office won’t help.

commenting negatively on a meeting being rescheduled twice isn’t harassment.

I agree, if you’re on a pip and you then accuse your manager of harassing you and refuse to come into the office, I think it is game over. Pips by their very nature are micro management, it’s not fun for anyone involved.

op, if you accuse your manager of harrassment you need to have a solid case and be able to differentiate it from managing you on a pip.

and the very definition of discrimination is being treated differently to others, due to specific characteristics, you are being treated the same, except for the monitoring, and I suspect that’s fully justifiable under a pip.

i would assume they are moving to termination for non performance. All the accusations in the world can’t stop that if they can evidence poor performance.