Informal/pre-existing flexitime/banked hours scheme

some of the team have been running a flexi-time/banked hours scheme without their current manager knowing. It was approved by a former manager over 3 years ago and not communicated during handover. The team are never asked to work over and above their hours but chose to do so and then bank their hours for a Friday pm for example.

We have a separate TOIL policy and if they are asked to do an event in an evening or weekend, then they can claim Toil.  This is followed by the whole business, but the flexitime scheme is used by 3 members of staff, the current manager doesn't sign off flexi-time and it is not one of our policies.

The manager now wants to stop the scheme as there is no business need for it, would custom and practice come into this as a former manager informally agreed it.  There is no written approval.

If so, I presume we would need to consult (the contracts give the right to change terms).

Parents
  • It was approved by a former manager over 3 years ago

    It's probably going to be considered an implied term by custom and practice, then.

    the current manager doesn't sign off flexi-time and it is not one of our policies

    But it is a form of flexible working recognized by the regulations, so it isn't directly relevant that it falls outside your policy framework, because they would have a legal right to seek flexi-time under the regulations.

    The manager now wants to stop the scheme as there is no business need for it

    As mentioned, yes, it probably would now be considered an implied term if they were to challenge it. I think the risk of them doing so is quite small, unless they are especially militant. But it will still create conflict with the line manager that can snowball to worse if left unaddressed.

    Furthermore, the smart move on their part would be to submit a formal flexible working request to make the arrangement a formal one. As it's been going on for three years with no discernible impact on quality or performance, it would be hard to make a real argument to decline. However, if you're going to make an argument to remove it, it would be worthwhile doing so on the basis of one of the fair reasons to refuse flexible working so this can be referred to in the event of any future formal request.

    Also, the eight fair reasons serve as a useful thought tool for managers when asking "why do I want to stop this arrangement?"

Reply
  • It was approved by a former manager over 3 years ago

    It's probably going to be considered an implied term by custom and practice, then.

    the current manager doesn't sign off flexi-time and it is not one of our policies

    But it is a form of flexible working recognized by the regulations, so it isn't directly relevant that it falls outside your policy framework, because they would have a legal right to seek flexi-time under the regulations.

    The manager now wants to stop the scheme as there is no business need for it

    As mentioned, yes, it probably would now be considered an implied term if they were to challenge it. I think the risk of them doing so is quite small, unless they are especially militant. But it will still create conflict with the line manager that can snowball to worse if left unaddressed.

    Furthermore, the smart move on their part would be to submit a formal flexible working request to make the arrangement a formal one. As it's been going on for three years with no discernible impact on quality or performance, it would be hard to make a real argument to decline. However, if you're going to make an argument to remove it, it would be worthwhile doing so on the basis of one of the fair reasons to refuse flexible working so this can be referred to in the event of any future formal request.

    Also, the eight fair reasons serve as a useful thought tool for managers when asking "why do I want to stop this arrangement?"

Children
No Data