If you have a business need for them to be in the office and a contractual right to this then where they live is largely irrelevant. Discuss this need with them and agree a return to the office plan (more delicately with the pregnant employee). At that point they will put in a formal flexible working request which you will consider in line with the legislation. Needing cover in the office if that is a real requirement is a legitimate concern and should be part of your consideration.

Discuss with the individuals and reach a compromise / agreement. They will either accept it and travel long distances to commute the 1/2/3 days a week you actually need them in the office or leave at some point. Quite possibly the latter.

Hi Emma,

We had something similar, although the person in question was not pregnant. We advised that we would need them to put in a formal flexible working request given they wanted to make it a permanent change to their T&C's to WFH, their contract had a specific work location. Suffice to say we did decline the request based on a number of the provisions based on the specifics of their job role with robust reasons for doing so.

We did think long and hard and had more than one discussion with them but making the decision only after exploring various options and alternative arrangements, including working from their 'patch' x days a week and x days from home. They were not willing to consider any suggestions we made.

Hope that helps and good luck

Donna

Hi Emma, some great advice from colleagues.

It will also come down to how valuable their skills are to you as an employer - and how easily they can be replaced. It's also worth considering the proportion of their job activities that must be done on-site and whether these can be managed in a different way.

I agree with the comments above. Where someone lives is irrelevant and entirely their choice; the issue to be decided is whether their regular presence in the office is required, taking into account genuine business practicalities and any unwarranted affects on other members of staff. Note "unwarranted", e.g. issues that have some genuinely detrimental effect on others' work or working time, not merely creating differences between work or working patterns. For example if all the roles in the office were originally recruited as full time, and all include taking deliveries or issuing keys, then why is it suddenly detrimental for those not WFH to carry out those duties, that they signed up for anyway? If they are not having to extend their hours, and there is no accompanying hardship they are now having to endure (or endure for longer) then where is the problem with having to issue five sets of keys a day instead of four, or sign for ten deliveries instead of six?

P

In reply to Peter:

Thanks for the reply but where does this leave us with 'the last man standing' as it were? Those who are still having to manage their working week to ensure their is office cover, the same for booking holidays. I just can't see what we are supposed to say to the two remaining team members who have not been at home. There will be perceived unfairness in addition to low moral.

In reply to Emma Irwin:

How does someone WFH affect the leave of those not doing so? This would be a matter for consideration during the FW/WFH application which might be resolved by the employee WFH agreeing to come in to cover those weeks. Equally it might be covered by a "temp" or (since the accepting of deliveries and issuing of keys is hardly a specialist activity), by someone else supplying cover for those "attendance necessary" activities. FW/WFH applications are accepted (or refused) based on specific practicalities but are also awarded on a "first come first served" basis insofar as if one person's WFH makes a second's application impractical to award then that is a reasonable ground for refusal of that second application, but not an acceptable reason to refuse the first, "just in case".

You refer to the other employees having to "arrange their week" to cover. Are they all on FW then? "arranging one's week" implies attendance at previously unnecessary times, not simply the rebalancing of activities within the week. Just as those still attending the office might take more deliveries and issue more keys, so might some of their other duties be passed to the employee WFH. Is that a problem for some reason? (Again, for discussion/resolution during the application process).

The key point being, as required by the legislation, FW should (and must) not be "unreasonably refused".

Guidance to the position is here: Flexible working - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

If the fact that other employees did not "get in first" is causing low morale then that is an issue to deal with, but is not a legitimate reason for refusal, and surely some alternative "benefit" is simple enough to find to off-set the effects of handling a few extra keys or signing a few additional delivery-notes? :-)

P