• Replies 17 replies
  • Subscribers 11 subscribers
  • Views 730 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

17

PA to the Principal - rejecting a FWR

Adeel

| 0 Posts

26 Jun, 2024 14:16

Hi All,

Working on a currently case that I wanted everyone's advice with.

Background:

In one of our schools we have a PA to the principal. She works a PA to the principal, during COVID she became pregnant so was asked to work from home, she then subsequently had two back to back maternity leaves. Upon her return in May/June 23 she returned to the temporary working pattern which was two days on site and three days working from home.

There have been ongoing concerns around her performance and her lack of reliable availability on her WFH days, unfortunately the principal hasn't logged these until very recently (only one incident). The idea is that a PA role requires 5 days onsite presence. whether that's going into meetings, assisting with recruitment, printing/filing etc. She does the HR admin as well.

So the principal had a few informal meetings with her to review the temporary working pattern (she also considers it to be a temporary working pattern), childcare is an issue although husband is at home. Marriage is rocky. The principal took this into account however said that following the review she needs her in 5 days a week and has given the start date of this working pattern from September 2024 to give her time to make any arrangements she needs.

She has taken Union Advice and has understandably put in a FWR, the FWR is around child care but wants to do longer hours Monday to Thurs and not work on a Friday. she claims this is because the principal told her she is hard to reach and can result in delays. She also wants to work from home in the mornings and then come in Monday to Wednesday and then work from home entirely on the Thursday

She also wants an OH referral done, I hate to sound cynical but from conversations I have had with her and the principal she isn't the most pleasant and she attends every work party and stays really late which gave the principal's doubts of her childcare issues but that might be just a red herring.

The only issue with the above is these working patterns were in place prior to the current principal starting which was in Sept 2022. There is a data manager in the school who does work hybrid, this was agreed by the previous principal as he is doing his PHD, does this affect our FWR situation with the PA?

My questions are: 

1) What do you think about the FWR being rejected following the meeting? There isn't a host of letters or email the principal can refer to say that there are concerns about the work she does from home. what sort of risk would the school be exposed to?

To be fair to the principal she is happy for the PA to reduce her hours so she does reduced hours 5 days a week or even do shorter hours on a Friday and make up the hours by adding it on to the days Monday - Thursday, and we are looking to propose these.

2) the OH report, should we complete one for her anyway? she has no current underlying health conditions and has very little sickness although i can understand this being a stressful time for her. 

Thank you!

730 views
  • Keith

    | 0 Posts

    27 Jun, 2024 11:33

    If you can show justification why this working pattern will not work for teh school then reject it. Offer any compromise you can but base it on facts and work needs not anything else.

    The fact you allow someone in a different job to work these hours is not hugely relevant. If they were doing a similar job it may well be

    What health condition are you looking advice on from OH? I dont really see any health issues here unless I missed then in reading your note
  • Adeel

    | 0 Posts

    27 Jun, 2024 14:27

    In reply to Keith:

    Thanks for the reply Keith.

    The OH is something she aske the principal that she wants to be referred, there isn't really any basis and it seems it just a response to being told that she needs to be in 5 days a week from September. Do we do an OH for her? or can we say no.
  • Robey

    | 0 Posts

    27 Jun, 2024 14:40

    that might be just a red herring

    It is. Fundamentally, why someone wants flexible working is largely irrelevant. The only question you need to consider is whether the institution can support the request. It's not about whether someone *deserves* flexible working. It's whether the flexible working model requested can deliver the outcomes needed from the role.

    She also wants an OH referral done

    Well that's not her call. Do *you* want an OH referral? I'm not sure why you would as you've given no suggestion that she either has high absence or has a disability that needs to be accommodated.

    1) What do you think about the FWR being rejected following the meeting?

    I think you should make sure that, if it's going to be rejected, it's on one of the eight fair grounds for rejection: www.gov.uk/.../after-the-application

    In your case, it sounds like you'll be focusing on the issue of quality and performance. But it's vital to remember that it's not about the *individual's* performance or quality. It's about whether *anyone* in that role would be unable to deliver the necessary standard of quality or performance required if working remotely.

    Individual performance issues should be managed using your Performance Management or Capability Management policy, not by withholding flexible working. Ultimately, if someone works flexibly and their performance is poor, then you should know - because you did due diligence before granting the FWR - that the problem is the person, not the flexible working, and then manage the person accordingly.

    2) the OH report, should we complete one for her anyway?

    I literally don't understand why this is even a question.
  • Kimberly

    | 0 Posts

    27 Jun, 2024 14:49

    Hi Adeel

    We would probably refuse any request from a PA to a HT to WFH as their role is school based - they take phone calls, do the inital meet and greet for visitors for the HT, set up and attend meetings, scanning, filing etc.

    We are also very clear that any WFH that is agreed is just that, and we expect care arrangements to be in place for dependnats during working hours.

    With regards to OH, I would ask the reason she wishes to be referred, and make clear that OH is to provide recommendations to support employees in the workplace who have injuries, illnesses and disabilities etc, and the need for childcare does not fall into any of those categories and is outside the scope of OH.

    At a push, you may consider a trial period, which if the requested work pattern doesn't work you'll have evidence to show this, and if it does work, then surely everyone would be happy?

    Hope that helps!
  • Adeel

    | 0 Posts

    28 Jun, 2024 10:00

    In reply to Robey:

    Thanks Robey! She just sent a long email accompanying the FWR she said the OH is for developing Eczema as a response to stress as well as feeling more burnt out than usual. so a response to the process.

    Another thing I forgot to mention is that she is getting paid an honorarium to do some admin work as well as behave as a bit of a clerk to the governing body. This will also be removed from her from Sept 24 as all governing body work is now done by our central team and has been for a couple of years now.

    Ultimately she is going down the road of sex discrimination because she has childcare. You are definitely right in that they haven't really managed her performance well and the principal hasn't really been using her as a PA but rather just doing things by herself. we have booked a meeting in so lets see how it goes
  • Adeel

    | 0 Posts

    28 Jun, 2024 10:02

    In reply to Kimberly:

    Thank you Kimberley, it definitely makes sense to have a PA onsite, I don't think the principal is utilising her effectively which is why she feels like she doesn't do much that requires a onsite presence.

    as my reply to Robey she has just emailed a lengthy email saying she wants an OH due to her eczema that she says is a response to stress.
  • Nina Waters

    | 0 Posts

    28 Jun, 2024 15:59

    In reply to Adeel:

    I think if you did a comparison of similar roles in schools, you'd be hard pressed to find a PA to the Head/Principal who regularly worked remotely. Our Head's PA works from home during the holidays and on occasional days, but there would be no way that it would work in that pattern regularly during the term. The Head's meetings happen on site, the things they need are on site, everything in schools happens here - many businesses are set up in ways that support remote working, but schools are emphatically not!
  • Adeel

    | 0 Posts

    30 Jun, 2024 14:42

    Thank you all for your replies, i just had a couple of questions:

    1) the fact she is being underutlisied, does that make a difference, for example if the principal wnats her to be picking uo more things that fall with in her JD, would that be okay to base the decision of her FWR on what the principal would need her to do going forward

    2) Also, she has a JD when she started, over the course of employment and as our HR team developed, a central set of JD’s were produced to provide some harmony in job roles, the PA JD became PA to principal and SLT, the salary is exactly the same, can we use that JD? Or should stick with the JD she was employed on, i have asked the principal to compare the two JD’s to see how big of a difference there is.
  • Kimberly

    | 0 Posts

    1 Jul, 2024 10:33

    In reply to Adeel:

    The FWR will be on the job she should be doing now. The JD will be the one she is fully aware of e.g. if the new JD was not communicated adequately, and/or not accepted at the time and not dealt with in the correct way, then that is not the JD.

    If there are still a number of uncertainties on how/if the FWR could work, the easiest way is to agree a trial period of sorts, but stressing WFH is not a substitute for childcare, and it is expected childcare is in place during WFH hours. You may find she declines the trial period if you are strict with this, or you can end the trial period if it is found she is caring for dependents whilst she is meant to be working (this could also be deemed misconduct) and this will give you enough to reject the request. However, if all is well and it works for both parties why would you not agree it?
  • Steve Bridger

    | 0 Posts

    Community Manager

    1 Jul, 2024 10:52

    In reply to Nina Waters:

    Here, here, Nina.
  • Sophie

    | 0 Posts

    1 Jul, 2024 10:55

    In reply to Adeel:

    I slightly disagree with Kimberly (possibly semantics only). The FWR is on the job she is doing now - that's very much about the role itself, not what she has actually been doing. So you should evaluate based on the whole role. Provided the items that the principal will be asking her to pick up are very much within her role, then they are part of your considerations even if she hasn't really been doing them. If you're anticipating this workload to increase as a result, you can be open about that. If she still feels the request is feasible, even after considering the increased or slightly different emphasis of duties, then you could arrange a trial - doing so will give you a much better chance of defending her sex discrimination claims.

    The JD really depends on how different the two JDs are. PA vs PA to principal and SLT seems like it would have very few material differences. You could come unstuck if the PA role could be done remotely, but PA to principal and SLT cannot but that's pretty much it. If not, it sounds like just a change in emphasis of who guides her duties.
  • Robey

    | 0 Posts

    1 Jul, 2024 12:00

    In reply to Adeel:

    she said the OH is for developing Eczema as a response to stress

    OK, well then let's charitably assume that she's seeking to have remote working implemented as an adjustment, so it's not unreasonable to get an OHP's input on whether there are grounds to think that this would be beneficial.

    But the fundamental question of whether she can do the work remotely still needs to be answered.

    she is going down the road of sex discrimination because she has childcare

    It is well established that remote working is not an alternative to childcare. If you are working and caring for a child simultaneously then one of them is going to be neglected. So then the question comes down to your grounds for refusing flexible working. You need to be able to show that you have considered the eight grounds for rejection and identified the ones you think are relevant and articulated why they apply to her situation, in order to make the rejection fair and non-discriminatory.

    Generally, her argument would not stand up. The childcare aspect refers to the fact that women are more likely to have childcaring responsibilities than men, so that a global change that discriminated against those with childcare responsibilities (not, in itself, a protected characteristic) would be indirect discrimination against women.

    But as you're talking about a decision affecting ONE employee, the fact that she has childcare responsibilities would only be relevant if you refused to let her work remotely because she would use time to work and care for a child simultaneously which, as we have already determined, would not be discriminatory because being a carer is not, itself, a protected characteristic.

    (If someone were caring for a disabled or elderly person, meanwhile, it might be discrimination by association; but children don't fall within the category for protection from age discrimination.)

    However, you aren't going to reject the application because of her childcare responsibilities, you're going to reject it on one of the either fair grounds, so the problem will not, in any case, arise.
  • Adeel

    | 0 Posts

    1 Jul, 2024 12:23

    In reply to Sophie:

    Thank you Sophie and Kimberley, I will check the difference between the two, i think her current JD has a lot that she isn't doing, so we have decided to just stick with it as a base to avoid another point of contention, the move from the PA to PA to principal and SLT can be done at a later date. Really appreciate everyone's wise words!
  • Adeel

    | 0 Posts

    1 Jul, 2024 12:26

    In reply to Robey:

    Thanks again Robey for your comprehensive reply, Gives be a bit more confidence going into the meeting, at the moment she is making it clear she has no childcare so needs to work from home because of it, meaning she is doing the childcare and working, it's just unfortunate the principal hadn't raised concerns with her before but we are where we are. I will let you know how it goes!
  • Adeel

    | 0 Posts

    6 days ago

    In reply to Robey:

    Hi All,

    I hadn't realised I hadn't gotten back to you. We managed to agree on a hybrid working model and decided to trial it for a term. Part of this arrangement includes her logging on Monday mornings for a Teams call with the principal to discuss work priorities for the week.

    It seems that now, all of a sudden, she is experiencing problems with her laptop. The reason I'm cynical is that this has happened before. My advice to the principal was to have her bring the laptop in to be checked. If it's found to be in working order and she still claims it doesn’t work, what are our options? Should we issue her a new laptop, and if the problem persists, address our concerns about the situation? What’s interesting is that while her laptop doesn’t seem to work for Teams calls, she has no issue sending emails first thing in the morning.

    How would everyone else proceed with this?