Call Now:
0141 331 5150
Glasgow: 0141 331 5150
Aberdeen: 01224 683 286
Manchester: 0161 920 5990
London: 020 7590 3152


I am Interested In:  
Annual Retainer Service Choose area of interest
Any Additional Information:  
Company Name:  
Employees:  
Best Time to Contact:  
Your Name:  
Your Contact Email Address:  
For enquiries
on any of our
services please
complete the
form alongside.
click here to view our
Privacy Policy

Flexible Working Requests - The Risk of Refusing
As parents of young children become more aware of their right to request a flexible working pattern, we consider whether the wide bases on which an employer can legitimately refuse an application really do make this a "toothless" law.
Email
Colleague

Those of you who read my recent e-mail update on the Government's proposal to extend flexible working rights to parents of children of all ages will be aware of the potential effect this proposal might have on traditional working patterns in the workplace.

At present, providing they have 26 weeks' continuous service, parents of children under six years old have the right to request a permanent change to their working pattern, providing that the request is made for child care purposes.


The most common request will simply be to reduce the number of weekly working hours, but any type of change to the employee's working pattern can be requested. Examples of flexible working patterns include term-time working, job sharing, flexi-time, or even working from home.

The employer can reject the request for a wide variety of statutory reasons, including reasons
relating to cost, performance, and quality. Normally, identifying a lawful reason for refusal will not be too difficult.

Additionally, the statutory language suggests that even a minor effect on the employer's business in one of the prescribed areas is sufficient to justify a refusal.

The employee only has recourse to tribunal if the employer failed to follow the correct procedure, refused the application for an impremissible reason, or based its decision on incorrect facts.

The tribunal's power is limited to sending the application back to the employer for reconsideration and awarding up to eight weeks' pay as compensation.

Therefore, employers could be forgiven for believing it is relatively safe to reject an application, even if the additional cost or effect on performance of accepting the application would be minimal.

However, there is a real danger to employers in rejecting requests on fairly insubstantial grounds, and that danger comes from sex discrimination laws.

It is trite law that requiring a woman to work full time is prima facie indirect sex discrimination, which will only be lawful if there is objective justification for the requirement.

In considering justification, a tribunal will weigh the
prejudice caused to the employer by allowing the employee to work part-time against the prejudice caused to the employee by requiring her to continue to work full-time.

Therefore, a reason that is sufficient to reject an application for a flexible working pattern may not be sufficient to successfully defend a sex discrimination claim.