• Replies 16 replies
  • Subscribers 13 subscribers
  • Views 699 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

16

Penalty for requesting flexible working...

Stuart Lawn

| 0 Posts

8 Jul, 2023 17:07

Hello everyone, I am hoping somebody might be able to advise whether a company is in the right to implement a ‘penalty’ for requesting flexible working please… The situation is that employees are contracted to do 35 hours a week. They are able to request flexi-time, as part of flexible working policy, however if they do, they are then told they have to work an additional 15 minutes a day for the privilege, equating to 2.5hrs a week. This seems a bit off to me, and I am even wondering if it’s legal?! New employees are automatically put on flexi-time and on the 37.5hr contract now . Many thanks all, Stew

699 views
  • David

    | 0 Posts

    9 Jul, 2023 06:59

    Hi Stuart

    Putting an employee to a detriment for asserting a statutory right such as this one is definitely unlawful. There may be special circumstances applicable here, but it certainly appears to be such in this case and well worth challenging
  • Clare Marie

    | 0 Posts

    9 Jul, 2023 08:01

    Hi Stew, please bear in mind the CIPD offers a legal helpline service if you wanted to get more information, link is: www.cipd.org/.../
    I don't have any useful employment law knowledge to share with you, however this looks very much like a strange view on flexibility! Please do update us with your findings if you have a chance. :-)
  • Stuart Lawn

    | 0 Posts

    9 Jul, 2023 09:02

    Thank you David, will certainly challenge!
  • Stuart Lawn

    | 0 Posts

    9 Jul, 2023 09:03

    Thanks Clare, will provide an update hopefully :)
  • Susan

    | 0 Posts

    9 Jul, 2023 17:36

    I suspect they are hoping to rely on the fact by agreeing flexible working they are offering a new contract and therefore T&C's (i.e. as per the new staff), however I rather think like Stuart this is likely to be considered unlawful especially if the change is a reduction in hours.
  • Peter Stanway

    | 0 Posts

    10 Jul, 2023 10:28

    In reply to David:

    It only makes sense if there is some sort of historical agreement to reduce hours- subject to...
    Still looks unlawful to me
  • Steven

    | 0 Posts

    10 Jul, 2023 12:47

    It is also worth considering does this match up with the company values and desired culture?
  • David Perry

    | 0 Posts

    10 Jul, 2023 15:59

    I do like these illegal attempts to improve 'staff engagement'.
  • Sharon

    | 0 Posts

    12 Jul, 2023 08:04

    In reply to David Perry:

    And then companies complain about staff turnover, difficulties attracting and if there's a change in the economic environment people walking out the door. I wonder why?

    Completely echo your sentiments David and would add emojis to show it if we had them available.
  • Steve Bridger

    | 0 Posts

    Community Manager

    12 Jul, 2023 09:59

    In reply to Sharon:

    If you hit 'Reply' > Use rich formatting... you get this...

  • Sharon

    | 0 Posts

    12 Jul, 2023 10:33

    In reply to Steve Bridger:

    Ooh nice one.Grinning

  • Robey

    | 0 Posts

    12 Jul, 2023 13:19

    If someone tried that on me I would ask them if they were also going to increase my salary by 7.14% given that they're proposing increasing my hours by that much.

    To the bigger question, though, I have heard of companies imposing a salary reduction for home-working on the basis that they no longer need to pay for commuting costs. Numbers as high as 10% have been floated around. I know for a fact that this is being done to new candidates ("yes, you can work remotely, but your starting pay will be 10% less"). I don't know if anyone's tried to pull it on existing employees, yet.
  • David

    | 0 Posts

    12 Jul, 2023 13:42

    IMHO this would not constitute a detriment for making a flexible working request under the Regulations.
    The Company operates a Flexi Time system. The terms of which are clear and applied to all those on the system.
    The Company is not requiring existing employees to change. It is allowing them to do so if they choose.
    As an example of good management/HR it fails miserably but I cannot see any mileage in a claim for detriment etc
  • Kay Meredith

    | 0 Posts

    18 Jul, 2023 16:46

    In reply to Robey:

    Hi Robey,

    I've heard of it - really upfront post pandemic with returning employees. 10% reduction if you're only in the office part of the week and a further 10% reduction if you choose to work from an office that's not the one stated in your hybrid contract. I'm curious about the eventual and inevitable indirect discrimination challenge...
  • Nicola

    | 0 Posts

    26 Jul, 2023 10:30

    In reply to Kay Meredith:

    I've heard of this too and don't understand how companies have got away with it. When a company advertises a job it doesn't usually include reference to commuting distance to get to the office as being part of the salary consideration. I've never come across any occasion when a job offer is made with the salary taking into consideration how far the applicant has to travel? The only time I think it could be considered reasonable is in the case of those who receive a London weighting payment - if they stop commuting to London and are instead wfh is it reasonable to expect to continue to receive that particular payment?