"Good business reasons" for employers not to take you back part-time

[shirleybradshaw]

I've been researching the procedures you need to follow in order to make a formal request to go back to work part-time, and keep coming across the phrase that your employer needs to give "good business reasons" for them to refuse this but I don't really know what an example of a "good business reason" is in this case.
Does anyone know what these consist of exactly (I believe there are x amount of reasons only), or of a good link which explains them?
I have made a request but have already been refused on flimsy grounds but want to be sure before I pursue it any further.
Thanks if you can help!

Well it does depend on what your skills are and how much the business needs them.

As a personal example. I went back PT, leaving my Mat cover to do the majority of the day to day and concentrated on the specialist skills I have that she does not. The business had grown in the time I was away and could afford the additional resource.

I don't think there is a definitive "site" that can help. If you post more detail of the job role and your skills we might be able to advise you how to word an appeal.

What is the position now? Have you still got the option of going back FT?

I think if you going part time impacts negatively on other employees then that can be a reason. Where I work there are lots of unsociable shifts, when someone requests a change to part time hours and it impacts upon how much extra shift work other employees would have to do (or can't do) then that would be a reason.

what grounds were you refused on?

Oh god the flimsiest of reasons ever - the points mentioned were
a) it's not possible
b) current recruitment freeze within the company
c) current economic situation
I know these are not valid reasons.
Anyway guys I have kind of answered my own question because I did an advanced search and someone else had posted the reasons (hot topic it seems):
Applications for flexible working arrangements can be refused only for the following reasons:

the burden of additional costs

detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand

inability to reorganise work among existing staff

inability to recruit additional staff

detrimental impact on quality

detrimental impact on performance

insufficiency of work during the periods the employee proposes to work

planned structural changes

But the thing that really worries me is if they twist their reasons to match any of these, as what was said already was only by email (does this stand up legally?) but now I have submitted a formal request by letter and think this might prompt them into doing proper research as they know I mean business now...

they need to put in writing their reasons for refusal (email might count but was it a formal response or a sort of informal one?)
unfortunately if they are determined to refuse they can make pretty much anything sound like a valid business case (well that's what my employer did...)
better to worry less about the legal specifics and concentrate on finding out why your boss is REALLY objecting and see if you can meet some of their concerns (eg they think it will be unfair on other colleagues - explain how the workload can be redistributed without that; they're worried about what would happen if there is a crisis on the days you are not in - could you agree that you would be reachable in an emergency by phone on your off days? or whatever)
good luck

From my research (having consulted lawyers as mine was declined ) there are virtually no reasons at all they can decline.

The one I was declined on (significant contact with senior management requires a full time position) is one that has specifically has been overturned at tribunral.

One of the only one that was upheld at tribunal was a senior midwife grade which was refused working 1/2 shifts (due to a continuing duty of care/responsibility for patients) - note this wouldn't have been refused if the request had been for full shifts....

Unfortunately you do have to take it to tribunal to challenge any negative decision which means not many people do it.

The 8 reasons given by shirleybradshaw are the only ones a business can give, but obviously some of them can be quite broadly interpreted, and it's not that hard to 'make something fit'.

A tribunal has no jurisdiction whatever over whether the reasons given were justified or not. It can't say the actual reasons given were not valid. It can force an employer to reconsider if the proper procedure wasn't followed, or if incorrect facts were used. But it can't decide what is a good business reason and what isn't.

The only way to deal with it in a tribunal if your employer has followed the correct procedure and you just happen not to agree with your employers decision is by bringing a sex discrimination claim or similar.