Head is spinning now...

[citybranch]

OK, complicated.
have posted before about DH's flexible working request. He's applied to swap positions with a part-timer at his location (part-timer wants the full time job).

We've been cross the past few days as 28 days had passed and no meeting had been held, DH contacted the union yesterday and sent a 'reminder' email to his manager. we checked out the ACAS website regarding breach of procedure etc.

Now, on the radio this morning they have announced hundreds of jobs are being cut, 150 of these being DH's grade. (not too difficult to work out who he works for now!) Now, there are a couple of thousand people in DH's grade throughout the company so there is no reason to suspect that DH or the guy he wants to swap with will be in the firing line BUT who knows!

DH has received a response from his manager today, asking for the meeting to take place on Thursday and saying that she 'forgot' to put it in the mail for him. I understand that this is still a breach of the procedure as the meeting should already have been held WITHIN the 28 days.

She also says that someone from HR will be attending the meeting --- for some reason I feel that this means they are going to knock his request back, no doubt stating structural changes as the reason.

News reports say that the restructuring won't take place until 2011, so should they still grant his request? I feel that a lot can change in a year so they should grant it. DH could get promoted etc, who knows?

Do you think that having the HR person there means the outcome will be negative? Can anyone think of any good questions that DH could ask bearing in mind the new plans that have come to light today?

I'm back to work in 2 weeks after Mat Leave, and they have dragged their heels this long (obvious why now) and we were relying on this flexible working request going through. Gaah!

Well, I've been on the 'other side' of H/R people (as union rep) but the mere fact that an H/R person will be present is absolutely not negative. It means that they will be there to discuss procedural aspects, such as permanent change of terms and conditions, probably address the issue of pay, any outstanding holiday entitlement, what it may mean to pension contributions etc.

I have no experience of this at all, but I have just read a book which covered this subject in gory detail (it's called let go of my leg by Kirsten Lees, I got it from the library)

She says to think about the request from the perspective of the employer. Think about all possible reasons for rejecting and come up with responses that show the flex working request is good for the business. If he's prepared with the arguments they may well reconsider if the answer was originally going to be no.

If it is no, be clear as to why it's no so you can appeal/come up with solutions.

I'm sure that someone from HR will be there just to make sure that procedures are followed/to support the manager. It doesn't necessarily indicate a yes or no decision.

Good luck!

Mmm. I'm going to disagree slightly. As an HR person I've only sat in on flexible working meetings if the answer is going to be 'no' or 'probably no', to assist with the explanation making sure the appropriate legal reasons are given and to handle fall-out.

Unless the organisation is very process-driven and bureaucratic, and/or has lots of HR people and automatically has one sitting in on all meetings like this (which might be the case), I don't think it's likely to be a straight yes. Things like pay and terms and conditions could either have been discussed with HR already so that the manager can brief on them, or could come afterwards.

I'd say it's likely to be either a no, or at the moment undecided with some complication or other. Given the background you've mentioned I suspect a straight yes is unlikely.

Thanks all,

Flowery, what you are saying is my gut feeling really. Both my DH and his colleague perform exactly the same roles, just one does 4 hours per day and the other 8. The swap would just mean changing their pay & pension info I think, and adjusting the A/L.

If it is not a yes I can imagine it is because one of the jobs will be going next year. The company bulletin that was sent out today though says that they will try to avoid redundancies and cut the jobs through natural wastage/ gradual displacement over the next 12 months.

Do you think that it would be worth DH arguing that any changes are still a year away and therefore using the 'restructure' business reason (can't recall how it is worded) does not apply in the immediate future? DH's colleague (the one he wants to swap with) has applied for other jobs recently so if he succeeds that is their 'natural wastage' right?

After all a year is a long time and DH would not like his request turned down on the basis of hypothetical changes 12 months away..

Sorry if it sounds as if I'm trying to second guess them (they haven't said no yet after all)!

Your thoughts are appreciated!