Is it legal / acceptable to allow some members of my team to WFH and not others?

[Transportation]

I manage a team of 8. Usual mix of personalities means that 2 out of the 8 are shirkers. Have to keep a very close eye on this pair otherwise there’s cherry picking of easy tasks, little evidence of output and general doing as little as they can get away with. There are multiple ‘appointments ’, dragging out of health issues and they are a headache to be honest.

Id like to be fair and occasionally allow a day WFH for a legitimate reason, say a car MOT or a medical appointment.

There are members of my team who’s output does not drop at all when WFH but predictably these pair will do even less, will disappear for long periods of time.

Id like to make it clear to the whole team that the luxury of WFH is based on trust earned and if productivity drops the perk will be removed.

I can evidence the drop in productivity via our ticketing system.

Would this be an acceptable approach or not fair to give to some and not others?

I would be interested to know how you are managing performance aside from the wfh issue…. I would want to keep this separate.

Managing these pair is like managing naughty children. As soon as your back is turned they try it on.

The difficulty is that some tasks the team does can take all afternoon, some 1 minute. It’s the luck of draw what you get allocated.

I keep a close eye on output and will have a word the minute I can see things dipping. I occasionally have to remind them to stop talking and get on with work.

its a constant battle.

Have you put them on a PIP or started capability proceedings? Having worked in a team with two pisstakers, I can tell you that most other people in the team will be looking for a new job if they don’t see their colleagues’ performance being challenged.

I think you have to be very careful here and if you have HR get advice from them first as it could lead to accusations of discrimination and you could fall foul of equality legislation depending on the protected characteristics concerned.

Unfortunately a work place is not like school and WFH is part and parcel of flexible working.

To be seen to be allowing some and denying some based on the fact that they are work shy unless you have something formal in place could leave the company in trouble.

I understand that you want to reward the hard workers but I'd be very careful if I were you.

Are there tasks which you can assign if someone is working at home which it is easy to see if they have completed it? Something quite time consuming however you do it?

I wouldn't conflate the two things, personally. The performance is one issue, WFH is another.

Even if they are WFH can you manage and monitor their performance? I'd go down the performance management route ASAP with them both.

I'd also apply a WFH policy as fairly as possible across the team. WFH isn't doing someone a favour, it's trusting them to do a job, wherever they are.
And if you don't trust someone then that needs addressing, which is a performance issue. That's how I'd approach it anyway.

If you start not letting other people WFH because of these 2 you'll lose them.

And I'd consider changing the luck of the draw method of allocating workload. Especially if it leads to cherry picking and piss taking.

Deal with them. It's literally your job as LM.
Otherwise your "good" staff will lose motivation or even leave.

All completed tasks can be seen via our reporting system so it’s easy to evidence a drop in performance.

It’s difficult to get support from my manager, their attitude is ‘aw they’ve always been like that, you won’t change them’ but I’m determined to try and stamp out this behaviour as it does have an impact on the rest of the team as there is regular talk from some about leaving as they can’t stand working with them.

What she said.

You need to manage their performance, including an action plan if necessary, which, in theory you should be able to do if theyre working from home, especially if you already have a system for monitoring output.

Fwiw, I wouldn't stand for a boss who told me to stop chatting. IMO building relationships is a legitimate part of any job. It's the outputs that matter, not how every second is filled.

I have a couple of staff members like this 🙄 pisses me off no end! Both went into PIP and both left - I'd go down that route!

Yes, I find it's an effective way of persuading people the job's not for them. Ditto managing sickness absence properly.

You need to address it by formal means then - PIP etc.

You can’t say “you can’t work from home because you’re not performing” but then not have anything formal in place that communicates their performance management (you also need to be seen as supporting them to improve).

I wouldn’t confuse the two, if your company allows and promotes flexible working (including WFH) then it needs to be applied to everyone in the same way.

You can allow WFH but in a performance review observe that you notice their performance drops when at home - do you have performance related pay rises, bonus or promotion opportunities?

I'd be managing them out before you loose the good people.

Nothing more toxic for moral than a couple of piss takers.

In answer to your post yes you can have WFH for some staff and not others, if the contract allows it can be your decision to offer the flexibility or not.

Each staff member can have needs allowed for on an individual basis.

Does your company have a working from home / remote / flexible working policy. If so this needs to be referenced as part of the assessment, because you need to be able to evidence their dip in performance is connected to the days they wfh.

Be careful about any blanket universal statements and assumptions about what "the team" does:

The difficulty is that some tasks the team does can take all afternoon, some 1 minute

Any objection you have about their conduct and expected performance needs to be very focused on individuals if it is to hold water, so it doesn't get conflated. The team is made up of individuals who each have unique performance capabilities, that need to be recognised as such.

Id like to make it clear to the whole team that the luxury of WFH is based on trust earned and if productivity drops the perk will be removed.

WFH isn't a "perk", not in the 21st century, so it's best not to characterise it as such. Taking away / withdrawing the ability for flexible working as a form of punishment can give a negative message to your wider time, causing morale across your department which isn't what you want.

I have recognised that I may need to over my managers head to the manager above to get buy in to put a PIP in place. Realistically, to protect the rest of my team I need to do this.

There is no WFH policy, it’s just been allowed since Covid as a good will gesture. Some department supervisors don’t allow it at all, others it’s a regular thing.

I would get a wfh policy in place pdq - without that, you'll get the P** takers who'll be glad there is nothing to hold their feet to the fire on,

That would be a HR responsibility, not mine. I agree, something needs to be rolled out across the company because it’s all ad hoc at the moment. There’s grumblings across the organisation that some people are using it for childcare etc and that’s absolutely not on.

But flexible working isn't down to a good will gesture! It's something staff can request legally, and their employer has to respond according to set criteria and business reasons.

I would suggest you contact ACAS and get their advice.

this advice is on their website

https://www.acas.org.uk/statutory-flexible-working-requests

what you may find is that the minute you put policy, process and procedure around this, it'll give a strong message to those taking the mickey that eyes are on them and they will be forced to sharpen up their act.

It IS a perk in an organisation that doesn't have a formal WFH policy. And even in the 21st century many, many jobs, the most important ones actually don't have WFh, you know like surgeons, cleaners, sewage workers.

OP I wouldn't allow anything without consulting HR. What you can do is allow WFH but use their reduced output against them to start the PIP process but doing it the other way around won't quite work

I'm not getting into the vagaries of which jobs are more important, that's a complete red herring.

I'm giving advice based on the OPs specific stated scenario.

i have checked above and it doesn't read like any of them are surgeons, cleaners or sewage workers.

ACAS good practice recommends policy and procedure in place , to make it clear and fair to all concerned on the rules of the game. The reason the OP has problems is that there is no policy in place to be able to test the employees' behaviour, outputs and performance against.

I’d get a PIP in place that states they need face to face monitoring throughout for XYZ reasons.