Emplyer refusing to backfill hours - HR advice?

[Frustratedatwork]

Hello

Last Autumn my employer started compulsory redundancy processes involving a number of teams at my organisation. As part of the initial negotiations, teams were allowed to reduce hours voluntarily to avoid compulsory redunancy. Our team agreed to do this, with some of us volunteering to drop our hours, and I was one of those people. Our employer made it clear this was a permnanent change to contract.

However, very shortly after this was resolved, two members of our team left outwith this process. As a team we were not aware this was going to happen, although HR knew it was in the works. If we had been aware, we would not have agreed to drop our hours, given that we are now far below what is sutainable for us to manage as a team.

HR have agreed to recruit to the majority of hours lost through these two team members leaving. However, they are refusing to allow us to backflll some of those hours by reversing the reduction in hours team members made as part of the compulsory redunancy negotiations. Their argument is if they allow us to do this, it will set a precedent for others in the organisation. My view on this is that firstly, if we as a team knew what HR knew at the time of negotiations, we would not have agreed to drop our hours, and it was therefore not a fully informed decision. Secondly, it seems a bit of a specious argument - we dropped our hours as a response to changing business context, and therefore it makes sense that there should be flex to allow the team to continue adapting to further changes and business needs - it doesn't seem to make business sense to hold such a rigid line.

I'm wondering if any HR people could advise on this - should we push back on this, and if so what is the best line? Or are we going to have to have to suck it up as individuals, and accept that we'll get hours back as a team via external recruitment only?

It does seem unfair and I’m not sure “setting a precedent” is a good enough reason. I often think it’s code for “can’t be bothered”.

ACAS is a fantastic service for free advice on stuff like this.

Essentially forcing employees to take an hours reduction to protect their roles from redundancy. And then recruiting to fill those hours from elsewhere strikes me as unfair. Possibly even constructive dismissal. I would seek advice, unions might be able to help.

Thanks both - I'll have a look at ACAS and contact my union rep - good idea. I shoud say they were very careful to frame it as an enitrely voluntary decision (to reduce hours). I also misunderstood the issue a bit - having reread the email, it's not about setting a precedent - it's that the hours would have to be advertised across all the teams where people have reduced their hours as people may find it unfair that we have been offered the opportunity to increase our hours back up when they haven't. But again this doesn't make any sense to me, as we're the only team in this position and who need the hours.

@Frustratedatwork I agree check with ACAS. The key point was the reduction in hours was a redundancy avoidance measure. The fact they didnt do full disclosure may be a factor.

Out of interest are the roles advertised full or part time? If they are full time then apply for one. I know that sounds counter intuitive but you can argue you want full time not part time and are willing to go through the recruitment process. This would undermine their argument as anyone is free to apply.

I think their argument would be that although they knew it was coming with the two team members leaving, they couldn't predict exactly when and still had to go through the compulsory redundancy process as a whole organisation at that point in time. That would be a good idea about applying for the post - unfortunately it won't be advertised at my grade/contract type otherwise I would - which makes me think actually this is probably them trying to make a cost saving.

Can you not apply for the other roles?

And therein lies their rationale - different grade and different contract. Also, depending on how the redundancy was conducted they may be right about the recruitment, and it would have to be open to a wider group of people.

That said, whilst your union might be able to get somewhere, I think that legally you would struggle to have acase of anything. Even if you could prove that they "missold" the deal, which would be hard, there isn't such a case in law. I think it would have to be a form of unfair dismissal, and since it was very clearly put that this was voluntary, I don't think you'd have a chance of winning.

Thanks EmmaMaria - yes I didn't think it would be a legal challenge situation for the reasons you say (plus I really wouldn't want to go down that route anyway) but have emailed my union to seek advice. I was more trying to think of a persuasive counter argument, as taking this to its logical conclusion none of us who reduced our hours in the orgnisation would ever be able to seek a change in our hours again, regardless of changes to business need. Whereas staff who didn't volunteer themselves would be free to do so. I'm kicking myself really - I did think at the time that we should have stuck to our guns and made them go down the compulsory route, but others in the team were really anxious about it and I was in a position where I could contribute. The benefit of hindsight...

...as taking this to its logical conclusion none of us who reduced our hours in the orgnisation would ever be able to seek a change in our hours again

It may be a logical conclusion but it isn't a legal conclusion. My best guess is that HR are being very careful for a simple reason - you are still technically within time to launch a tribunal claim. The normal time limit is 3 months less a day, but in some circumstances that can be extended. It's rare and I doubt it would apply - but without knowing the full set of circumstances it's impossible to be certain. However, past six months there is actually no reason that you shouldn't be able to ask for an increase of hours again provided it meets the business need - at that point it is down to them to decide what they wish to do. In some ways it might make better sense in some circumstances - employng part-time staff, for example, can cost more than simply adding extra hours to existing staff. Equally, if a full time post came up you could apply for it - your existing terms should be continued providing it is the same grade and employment terms.

Disagree. They volunteered to change hours permanently.

The employer can choose to fill newly vacant posts as they deem best for them.
I wouldn't necessarily do the above, but if they choose to, they can.

You could just apply for the full time job. Nothing to stop you.

Except for the fact that the OP said that it would be lower paid and on a different type of contract?

Apply to increase hours as a flexible working request. Try and ensure that between you you cover the whole hours or 1 person's hours. Not sure how they could deny such a request realistically.

They are building mistrust relationships here, very poor practice imo.

It’s not unlawful but it is a completely bizarre approach unless they want you to be pissed off and look elsewhere