5

Formal and informal approaches to flexible work location

Hi Community,

Looking for some advice once again :-) 

Back story; after COVID, most of our staff are remote based, and its up to them should they wish to attend the office. Like many other businesses, we are looking to adapt this for more office visibility (due to a number of reasons I wont go into but they are valid and evidenced). We have not mandated, but 'encouraged' staff to attend the office at least once per week. We have left this to our managers to discuss with their teams and agree but as mentioned, we pride ourselves on our flexibility so we want to keep away from mandating anything. 

We have already had a formal FWR which has been approved due to an individual relocating and have agreed they can attend the office twice per month. This has been agreed in writing and a contract amendment has been finalised. We have a few other staff who have relocated and arent able to make it in once per week. We are keen to reach and agreement that suits both parties for this. My only query, is we are looking to informally resolve the staff who havent put in a FWR, but also keep consistency. Would it be the same end result that we would agree the new terms in writing, regardless if it was a formal FWR request or informally agreed? 

Sounds a bit like a stupid question but just sense checking :-) 

Thanks in advance

366 views
  • Informal means no procedure, no limit to requests and probably temporary change to T&Cs
    Formal means procedure, some limits on number of requests and permanent change to T&Cs
  • Remember that FWRs should be considered at the point at which they are submitted. So there is no requirement to offer it to all just because you've offered it to one. You need to take a position on whether you're going to tip-toe softly, pretty please your approach to office-based working and let people basically continue to work as remotely as they please or whether you are going to press more firmly and elicit further FWRs. If you go for the latter route, there may be a rush and when the music stops, someone or several someones may find themselves without a chair and unable to comply with a mandatory requirement in their job.

    Frankly, if you think that office attendance is "valid and evidenced" then you should be insisting and be prepared to part company with those who cannot comply. If you're not prepared to do so then is it, really, as valid and evidenced as you think it is?
  • Steve Bridger

    | 0 Posts

    Community Manager

    5 Mar, 2024 12:25

    In reply to Robey:

    I think it's interesting how orgs who perhaps recruited employees who may live a long way from 'base' (so to speak) are re-calibrating back - a little bit anyway. I know of councils (for example) who have benefitted from attracting staff who would not have considered a role had it meant re-locating. Lots of unique variables to balance up.
  • Steve Bridger

    | 0 Posts

    Community Manager

    5 Mar, 2024 12:29

    Hi Rebecca. Moved this to (Missing Forum) 

  • In reply to Steve Bridger:

    I'm seeing a lot of double standards, too. Staff who live further away are allowed to work remotely or more flexibly than those who live nearby, even though their roles are identically interchangeable. Given the legal grounds for refusing FWRs doesn't include "but they only live down the road", these decisions are easily open to challenge. But as the legal cost of a successful challenge is relatively modest, a lot of businesses are prepared to suck it up without considering how they are damaging relations with staff by only selectively choosing to follow the rules.