There is no reason why they couldn't work overtime if you grant this flexible working request

Are you sure you can accommodate someone "breaking" the shift pattern in this way?

Imagine your other operatives will quickly want this more sociable shift pattern as well.

In reply to Keith:

It's a difficult one, we are leaning towards a yes due to the caring for an elderly relative, however, it's a risk that others may follow suit

In reply to Annabel:

Yes, that is a risk we may face if we agree to this request which is why I wondered if we could stipulate that this person should not work any other hours other than those requested as the majority of staff like being able to work overtime

In reply to Julie:

Some organisations faced with this situation might offer to fix the employee on one or other of the two shifts. So, earlies or lates. That might be a more reasonable approach than having someone come in halfway through one shift and go home halfway through another.

Not allowing overtime would be a detriment / penalty which would be unwarranted.

(If they need to be available to lift from a fall I struggle to see why a particular set of hours might be more convenient than others)

In reply to Keith:

Thank you Keith,
There is assistance during the normal 'day' but not outside of these hours

1. In response to Annabels comment regarding others may also want to change to a set 8am to 4pm shift I would not take this into consideration in any decision for this employee's request. As with any flexible working request it  should be individually assessed and whilst you may be able to accomodate it for 1 employee the business may not be able to accomodate it for any more than the 1.
   Also, most employers take working shifts into account when setting an hourly rate (i.e. base rate + X% for shift work) even if only a minimal enhancement. So does the employee realise that by working set hours with no shift work his hourly rate will be reduced? This would also impact pay for any overtime hours whether they are payable at same hourly rate or enhanced (e.g. base x 1/3 or base x 1/2).
   I would allow overtime but would monitor it as, based on his reasons for requesting these set hours, I would expect his availability for it to be minimal/occasional.

In reply to Susan May:

Agree in theory that that is the correct response. But in practice what I'm saying is stand by for others to say that starting early or finishing late also impacts their mental health. Business might need to be prepared for that.

Hi Julie,

Just layering onto the other comments in this thread, is there any option for the employee to do this temporarily whilst they seek other arrangements?

I have had very similar instances with young employees and mental health, most recently we agreed to reduce an employee's working contract from 20 hours to 14 hours for 3 months. 14 hour contracts are very attractive for employees, but they statistically come with much worse absence and lateness issues, our data is empirical on that. So as a rule, we don't normally agree to any less than 20 hours, but it felt like the right thing to do in this instance.

Going back to my first point, by making it a temporary arrangement, this is still supporting the individual but it reduces the risk of you getting a flood of similar requests in your inbox in a few weeks from other employees. I have worked in factory and distribution environments, and I imagine they talk to eachother at length about such things.

In reply to Susan May:

Thank you Susan
Following further discussion, in the first instance we may offer an alternative role where there are set hours as we really don't want to 'open the floodgates' due to the small number of employees we have.

In reply to Charles:

Thank you Charles,
Yes, they do discuss at length with each other, a temporary arrangement is another thing we will consider.

In reply to Julie:

Before approving a request we tend to go down the route of agreeing to trial it for a set period first which then gives an opportunity to see if there are any unintended/unexpected consequences which might impact in ways which were not anticipated. Once approval has been given it cannot be undone so we find a trial is a good option to see how the proposed change actually works in practice.

In reply to Susan May:

Can I just back Susan's response regarding the setting of precedent, or rather, the fact that accepting one flexible working request does NOT set a precedent for others? I hope it's reassuring that the 'opening of (any) floodgates' here is a red herring. Yes, it may involve some difficult conversations and some mutterings of unfairness if future explanations aren't immediately understood by those who come after this individual and make similar requests which cannot be reasonably accommodated, BUT this doesn't change the fact that you would not be obliged to say yes to all (or any) others if business circumstances do not allow it.

Potential claims from others that working early or late affects their mental health could be dealt with via a capability/occupational health route but entirely possible that the ultimate outcome would be similar - changing these working hours may well not be a reasonable adjustment even if one were required to be considered.

Agree that both sets of circumstances above would involve time, HR expertise and possibly also money to put to bed, but they certainly can be put to bed if the right processes are followed and the business's reasoning is sound.