workplace making part time more and more difficult - any advice

[moulesfrites]

I am a teacher and work in a school that has recently - ie last Sep - moved to a two week timetable. This means that for part time staff, their days off one week are not necessarily the same the next. Foe example, a colleague's days off are Tues and Fri one week, but Wed and Fri the next week. Because of the way nursery places seem to work, someone in such a position typically needs to pay for 4 days of childcare a week when they are only using 3 - in order to keep the place in nursery. Obviously this means working is not financially viable in some cases. This year they seem to be making it even more difficult - for instance - a colleague who had requested 3 full days at work has been timetabled for 4 afternoons off one week and two full days off the next. This again has major implications for childcare to the point where this colleague feels like looking elsewhere. Can someone who knows about employment law give any advice on this. This does not affect me directly but may in future, and I am interested in the legal aspect of it. TIA

bump - anyone?

It's obviously impossible to comment on your colleagues' individual situation as I have no idea about the basis of those part time agreements - whether there was any commitment to set days for example.

I think what you're asking is whether the practice of implementing a two week timetable is indirectly discriminatory because it makes childcare a bit more difficult and therefore impacts more upon women than men. Is that what you mean?

If that's the question, then it's probably unlikely because two week timetables are really common and I imagine the school would be comfortable they'd be able to demonstrate a business need for the change.

If someone had wanted to challenge the new system when it was implemented, it would have to have been on the basis of demonstrating that the change would have a disproportionately negative impact on women.

Whether the individual flexible working agreements your colleagues have in place have been breached by the change is a matter for them obviously.

Just bumping you - I want to know about this exact same issue

yes I am asking if it is discriminatory - I think it does have a disproportionately negative impact on women.

As Flowery has said, it is potentially indirectly discriminatory. Indirect discrimination is the sort that impacts one group more than another and, as Flowery says, it can be defended if the employer can show a business need for the change.

In terms of a flexible working request, if you request 'part time on X days' they would have to grant that or give a business reason why they couldn't. They can't just say 'oh, well we'll grant part time but the days will vary from week to week' unless they can show the business reason why.

For existing flexible working agreements, you'd need to look at how specific the agreements were.