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….!

Also, no work for you in two days doesn’t mean your role is redundant. Your role is five days. Have they said your five day role remains?

Only if your role doesn’t remain are you redundant. Saying there is no work for you for two days essentially means that it’s not effective for the business to put you on stuff and having clients or whatever waiting 3 days for a response, continuity of service, delivery timelines, etc etc. It would be helpful if you outlined what your role is but if you think about it, at 2 days a week it would take you in to a third working week to complete the amount of work you previously were. That won’t be sustainable for many roles.

They should consider an alternative though rather than saying 5 or nothing. Are there any other part time people?

No, that isn't what the OP said. She said that the refusal of her request meant that she would automatically have to go back full time. So it doesn't sound like her substantive role is redundant at all, she could go back if she wanted to. The employer just doesn't have any work that they can usefully give her to do in 2 days.

Of course, they might be hoping that she will just resigned anyway. But they may well be perfectly happy for her to go back to her full time role.

Are they legally obliged to consider an alternative?

No, they aren't. That said, the OP may be able to negotiate with them informally for, say, 3 or 4 days a week.

Yes that’s what I thought

It may be her contract but did she previously do the role ft?

I couldn't have a staff member work that little due to the nature of the work. I have one staff member who does 3 longer days on a flexible basis - so works around business needs any of the 5 days or at home as required. Otherwise I'd be duplicating effort. So I wouldn't have a job for 14 hours a week. Perhaps they weren't clear about what they meant?

She did yes. She went part time after 3 years and it’s been 14 years now.

Nobody is saying it isn't a thing. Obviously it will be possible in some jobs. Most of us are simply saying that there are many roles in which it simply wouldn't be practical.

This is correct - they are saying they have no work for me but have “kindly” offered me one day at reduced pay…

To clarify, my work have told me they do not have enough work for me for two days. They have offered me one day as that’s all they can afford.

There are other people in the same role as me and they haven’t had their hours cut.

I work as a picker packer in a warehouse.

Yeah, other people are on two days!

So they are saying that you can't go back to your full time post at all?

It’s an awkward situation where they have rejected my two day request (as there isn’t enough work). By rejecting my request it means I stay on what I was before maternity (5 days), however, they do not want me on 5 days (due to lack of work), but have offered me one day at reduced pay.

It’s very messy.

So what would happen if you said you wanted to return to your previous 5-day a week role?

They know I can’t go back full time due to childcare reasons. So they’re relying on the fact I’ll hand my notice in because they know I can’t go back full time.

Aren't there two separate things then:

The FW request, which they do not have to agree to - the right is to request not receive

The fact they aren't giving you your existing job back as they should but are instead trying to get you to agree to return one day a week as it suits their situation.

Have I understood correctly?

Sounds like this isn’t the job for you OP.

Why don’t you just start looking for an alternative where the two days a week can be accommodated?

They are not obliged to fulfil your request, and are offering your normal role back to you - so legally I don’t think you have any ‘case’ here.

Please contact Pregnant then Screwed, they will help you. Your employer is picking your role off because you have been on maternity leave. If there is a necessary reduction of workforce then they have to put all the other people who do the same job at risk.

Do not resign. Call their bluff and say you will return to your previous hours.

To clarify - my work will not be recruiting anyone else to pick up my other days. The business has gone downhill in this last year.

I don’t think I fully explained myself properly in my initial post!

I am a HR Director and I also read it this way.

I interpret it that they used the FW response as an opportunity to inform you that your role is redundant anyway, so the FW request need not be looked at all.

Kind of a confusing and odd approach but understandable in a way.

That said, they are wrong that they cannot make you redundant. They can. I believe they could be trying to avoid paying you a redundancy package and are hoping you’ll just go away quietly. Do not do this.

Correct - and the fact they haven’t replied to my appeal within the two month time frame (statutory guidelines)

Call their bluff.

Say that as your request to reduce to 2 days has been rejected, you have managed to arrange childcare and will see them on x date, to return full time.