Flexible working request denied… unjustified? (currently on maternity leave)

[Daisywillow17]

Hello all,

I am after a bit of advice. I put a flexible working request in and it’s been denied in the grounds of burden of additional costs & insufficient work.

Before going on maternity leave I worked 5 days a week, I have requested to work 2 days a week.

My managers got me in for a meeting to discuss this and they told me the company is down 30% on this time last year so they will be unable to accept my request going down to two days. This automatically means I have to go back to working full time (as the law states I have to go back on what I was on before maternity). They know I don’t want this, essentially forcing me to hand my notice in.

Additionally, my workplace have not met the statutory time frame of the two month response of my request. They’ve gone over this.

It seems as if the company assumed I wasn’t going to go back, hence the reasoning of burden of additional costs, when, in fact I’ll be costing the company less as I’ll be working for them less (5 days to 2).

As they’ve said that there is no work for me for two days, this essentially means my role is redundant. but they’ve said they are unable to make me redundant because of the 18 month maternity protection.

where do I stand with this? I have appealed on the basis that their justification makes no logical sense and the fact that I’ll actually be costing the business less.

i really want to go back two days a week, I have no idea why they assumed I wasn’t going back….!

To Me, that is not a flexible working request. You have asked to return and work less than half what you were contracted before. They have said there isn't a role for 2 days a week. The additional costs would be recruitment / employing / training an additional person to fulfill the other 3 days from a 5 day contracted role.

That’s a huge change of hours. You could see if they’ll meet you halfway, broached with the savings for the company in this difficult financial time, but 2 days is quite a burden on an organisation as there is such a gap between when work can be done each week - I can see it not being popular. I mean that kindly but as a manager (and I manage 3 amazing pt colleagues). They take up the same amount of time in 1-1s, appraisals, work I put into developing or workstreams in my portfolio but are less available. They each do 3 days and that’s okay but 2 would be too much effort for too little benefit imo (but that’s my workplace and they do vary).

Flexible working is if you work the same amount of hours but start/ finish earlier or working compressed hours over 4 days.

You have asked for a reduction in hours that (rightly or wrongly) have no benefits to the business. It all depend on your role and the business needs.

In fairness to them, our organisation would never accept someone working just 2 days a week. 3 is the absolute minimum and any less if just isn't worth it. Full time to 2 days is a huge change.

There's nothing flexible about what you asked for!

That's not a flexible working request, that is a request to massively reduce your hours and go into a part time role

As a PP has said there's nothing flexible in your request. A flexible request might be to do 3 days WFH plus 2 in the office, or compressed hours but just requesting to slash your hours to less than 'normal' part-time is far from that. An appeal is likely to fail because your request is not flexible!

Two days isn't enough really to be worthwhile in most jobs. A lot of employers would decline such a request. I don't see how they're forcing you to hand your notice in? It's totally your choice as to whether you go back to your job on a full time basis - that offer is still on the table. They aren't under any obligation to let you reduce to two days, and I can quite see why they might consider it too costly to authorities if finances are tight.

No way would we allow that
Did you run it past your boss before submitting your request
Are others doing 2 days

This IS a flexible working request! OP there was another similar thread to this recently, it might be good reading for you. I understand your frustration. They are essentially trying to force you to resign. I believe they are incorrect about not being able to make you redundant though.

Edited to say: gov.uk says a flexible working request may include changing the number of hours you work.

HR person here.

This is a FW request. You have the right to request a change to your hours, days or location of work.

In most jobs 2 days a week is impractical . Are there other people on 2 days a week? If you want to go back I would make a revised request for 3 or 4 days. Unless you think you have a goid case for 2 days, eg because you can jobshare with someone else who does 3 days.

You might have misunderstood what they mean by additional costs, the cost is recruiting and employing someone to do the 3 days work you'd no longer be doing. They'd have additional management costs, national insurance, pension etc.

Unless your job is very easy to cover then 2 days a week won't work for most 9-5 workplaces. Have you asked if they're willing to meet you halfway?

Just because you don't want to go back full time doesn't mean they're forcing you out, unless they've outright asked for your resignation? It would be your choice not to return.

You are right that it's a FW request and that the OP has a right to request a reduction in her working hours.

But perhaps you could have also pointed out that her employer is under no obligation to accept her request if they have good business reasons for not wanting to do it.

What about continuity on the days you're off? What would happen to emails, calls, meetings or whatever your role entails?

My employer (NHS) does not allow any FL request that would involve cost, significant loss of hours or the recruitment of an other person- among other things. Going from 5 to 2 days would definitely involve all of the above.
I know, because I tried to reduce my hours... business needs trumps personal wants/ needs.

The additional costs presumably would be the needing to hire someone to cover the other 3 days. It is more expensive to hire 2 parts timers than 1 full time.

Could you meet them half way?

They are assuming you will resign.

I would submit an appeal on the grounds that their reasons for rejecting the request don't apply here. You're a FT employee and unless they agree to your FW request or follow a redundancy process you will return as a FT employee. So reducing your hours to part time as a FW arrangement would incur LESS cost than your FT salary not more and you could also argue that there is 2 days worth of work you can do (you will need to give examples eg which bits of your job/ task still need doing).

I would also remind them that If they are saying there is no work or less work for you to go back to then they have to follow the statutory (ie legal) redundancy procedures.

Likely there is a headcount freeze due to reduced performance so no resources to recruit someone new for three days. It can be refused on business grounds.

HR here. Depending on your role…. Most full time jobs could never sustain a jump down to two days! Four days common, three at a push but is challenging. You need to adjust your thinking as to what flexible actually means.

It is a FW request but it's quite a reduction in hours.

The additional cost to them is in recruiting and training someone to fill the remaining three days, then an ongoing cost as the line manager then has double the number of 1:1s and performance reviews to do.

Could you either suggest a job share partner, so between you you'd do the full time hours.

What sort of hours would you do, two full days? I'd probably manage to fill a three day a week role, but if you then left, I'd struggle to recruit to a two day a week role. It's often easier to recruit someone who wants to work school hours but if the job is 9-5 or 8-6 or whatever that wouldn't work.

It also depends what you do. If it's a shift stacking shelves or making coffee it's easier to fill smaller roles.

If it requires continuity on projects, attending stakeholder meetings etc then it's a lot harder.

Your employer is wrong about 'not being able to make you redundant'

There is an 18m protected period where in a redundancy situation you have* the right to be offered a suitable alternative vacancy (if there is one) if your job is at risk of redundancy during the period.*

It gives you priority in being allocated any alternative roles available, but it does not prevent you being selected for or made redundant - if there is a genuine redundancy situation and your employer follows a fair selection process and consults with you and any other employees affected

Are you sure you work in HR?

The OP's employer have said there is no work for her for 2 days - not that her original job has disappeared.

I presume that they want a FT person in the OP's role and don't have any alternative work to offer her that can be done in two days. Hence the claim that there would be additional costs.

She hasn't said anywhere that they have told get that she can't have her old job back.

Oh blimey have I read that totally wrong op?

I read it like you've asked to reduce to 2 days and your employer has said they don't even have 2 days work for you - is that correct?