Choosing between Family & Work commitments

LegacyUser

Hi all,

I'm not looking for legal advice (obviously) just wondering what other peoples take on the following is: (apologies if this is long, I need to give you as much detail as possible)

So I've been employed in accounts department of a hotel for just shy of a year now.
I am a single parent living in South county Dublin and my job is just outside the city centre.
My travel time to and from work is aprox 1hr 15min each way and my daughters creche closes at 630 so I need to leave work by 1645 in order to make it back to the creche on time. When I was offered the job the hours of work were 9-530, work a 40 hour week but only paid for 39(?), I discussed the above with my manager and asked if I could come in at 830 work through my paid 15 mins and leave at 16.45, he said that was fine and so was the arrangement for the last year.

That manager left in January, and a new one in his place.

Since he has started he has introduced new procedures and given me double the work to do, I am on top of these things now as I've gotten used to doing them, and there has NEVER been any issues with my work, attention to detail or anything similar.

On Thursday he was due to have a one-to-one meeting with myself and the other girl that was there but that never materialised. Yesterday I arrived in to an email from him saying he wished to speak with me in relation to some accounts, when he came in I told him that was no problem, I was busy at the moment as the other girl was off and I was doing her work could it wait until after lunch.

With one thing and another it was 330 before we sat down, we were nearly finished, a few more accounts to go through at 430 when we were discussing an old account which is in quite a mess, I spent a lot of time on it last year trying to reconcile it with no luck, I explained this to him, told him it would be better if we sat down next week with backup for it rather than verbalising the account, it would be easier to explain, I asked could we move on and finish the rest of the accounts as I had to leave in 15 mins to collect my child.

He then got quite aggressive in his tone, told me "we finish when we finish, I'm not finished talking about this account", Again I told him it would be easier to sit down and spend time next week that unfortunately I was under pressure to collect my child being a single parent I'm the only person who can do it! This same conversation went back and forth a couple more times, I said "I have family commitments which I cannot put on hold right now" he then proceeded to tell me "You need to choose between your commitments then" I asked him if he was asking me to choose between my job and my daughter and he was silent, I then called HR in (who is more than useless) I asked her to explain to him about my hours, and my situation etc, she said it was an agreement with the previous manager etc, and that I have to stay until the work is done, we dont get paid for overtime, I am salaried on my contract, but they recently changed all salaried workers to hourly on the payroll....

During this time he told me that the Financial Director has asked him to log every time I leave the office, for how long, and when I return, and according to him one particular day last week I was out of the office for a total of 3 hours!! The nature of my job requires me to be in and out of the office not to mention I need to leave to go to lunch and the toilet!!!

My first reaction to this is that I feel like I am being watched, and ear-marked as "not a team player" simply because I am on my own with my child and cannot do overtime etc.. not that I need to do it as I can complete my work before I clock out... whats the issue??
Anyone got a reaction to this? Am I overreacting?
I was in tears all night last night because of this, I feel they're trying to find things to hang me on, because my work is flawless, during the snow etc, I stayed there overnight to do extra work, and make sure I was in the next day, so nobody can say I'm not committed to my job...

HELP!

Clauric

No legal advice available on this site (site rules).

I would contact NERA and/or a solicitor that specialises in employment law.

Mrs OBumble

LiMaCat wrote: »

.... just shy of a year now.

This may be the problem - you're just about to get rights.

I don't think you're over-reacting.

I do think you need to keep a detailed record of how you spend your time.

And TBH, if I were you, I'd be job-hunting. The new manager just doesn't sound like a new person to work for.

Shelflife

As Justmary has highlighted the just shy of a year is very important, how shy of the year are you?

Once you get over the year your rights improve no end. bend over backwards to facilitate management to get you over this hurdle.

once this date is reached it puts you in a much stronger position.

Stheno

I know you won't like this but you took a job with hours that don't suit your circumstances and now that you are being asked to work those hours you are finding they don't suit you.

Imo you don't have much in your favour.

I probably sound very harsh, but my hours of work in my contract are 8:30 -5:30, and I got a call at 6pm on Friday telling me I was off to Cork on Monday and wouldn't get back to Heuston Station before eight, and hoping I'd no plans for Monday night

Your lifestyle/circumstances don't even allow you to work the basic hours laid out in your contract, you need to either find another job, or find a creche that opens long enough for you to meet the hours you need to work, or move to a childminder?

LegacyUser

Thanks for the input.

I am 1 year there on the 30th of March.

I accepted the job knowing the hours of work were from 9-530 yes. On my very first day there I worked those hours. On my second day there I told my manager (old manager) that finishing at 530 was going to be an issue for me, and i explained my situation, the distance I had to travel in an hour etc. I told him that if he could not facilitate an earlier start and an earlier finish for me then I would finish the working day, but I wouldnt return to work. Giving him the opportunity to give the job to someone who could work those hours.
He said it wasnt a problem and agreed those hours then and there with me. As far as I am concerned my hours of 830-1645 was and still is a verbal agreement. End of. If they want to revert back to 9-530 then they need to inform me in writing and give me an opportunity to address it and see if i can work those hours.

I do not want to switch creches, my child is settled and happy there and tbh I find it much better for her than a childminder as she is with other children. Also I do not know of many creches in my area that are open past 630pm, everyone has a life!!

TBH i dont know if I can or if I should wait and sit back writing everything down. I feel they are trying to push me out and if I sit back and wait, I may miss my opportunity to approach and resolve this issue. And besides if I raise the issue now, it may take 2 weeks to resolve with several meetings etc, as I intend to bring this up as a form of bullying, and as long as I have a grievance of that nature in, they cannot fire me just like that...

gerrycollins

On the just shy of a year.... If you have not had any issues where you were spoken to about ie timekeeping attendance etc it would be a very poor decision to act against you with such a short period of time till your anniversary

Shelflife

And besides if I raise the issue now, it may take 2 weeks to resolve with several meetings etc, as I intend to bring this up as a form of bullying, and as long as I have a grievance of that nature in, they cannot fire me just like that...

What makes you think that they cannot let you go because you cry bullying ? Im not saying that you dont have a point its just that up to a year the company holds all the cards.

Imho if you bring out the bullying card now it could push them to make a decision before your year is up.

pollypocket10

OP keep detailed notes of everything. This could be seen as discrimination/victimisation because of your family status which is prohibited under equality legislation. Unlike some employment legislation you are covered under these acts right from the point that a position is advertised, so you are covered regardless of your length of service.

Write down everything you remember of the original agreement. What was discussed, who was present, what records were kept and if you can remember date etc.

Also note down all this in relation to the conversation with the new manager and HR.

Note down any changes that have been made eg,logging the time you leave the office etc.

I would also speak to HR and log your concern with them officially, you need to be seen to use every avenue available to you if you are to be successful in any case you might take in the future.

I think the Equality Authority should be your first point of contact for legal advice.

HTH

micdug

"This could be seen as discrimination/victimisation because of your family status which is prohibited under equality legislation" ???

You really don't have a leg to stand on. I don't know why people rush to "bullying" or the "equality authority". This really undermines people who are genuinely being bullied or treated differently because of sex/sexual orientation/race. It's not bullying to be asked to work the hours you were contracted for and it's certainly not unequal.

First things first - your personal arrangements or circumstances are of no concern to the company. It simply does not come into it. They don't have to take this into account. End of.

You signed a contract for a job that was 9 - 5:30. You are required to work those hours unless the company allows otherwise, which it did for a time. Mention of your personal commitments is irrelevant.

You accepted the job with those terms and the day after you told the person who hired you that you'd walk if you didn't get the hours you wanted?? That's shocking behavior and any sympathy I had for your situation evaporated with that.

"And besides if I raise the issue now, it may take 2 weeks to resolve with several meetings etc, as I intend to bring this up as a form of bullying, and as long as I have a grievance of that nature in, they cannot fire me just like that... "
Yes they can and if they think you are about to start a lot of trouble they absolutely will! If you want to keep the job, you need to work their way. If you don't you'll need to follow the offer you made the after you started.

pollypocket10

micdug wrote: »

"This could be seen as discrimination/victimisation because of your family status which is prohibited under equality legislation" ???

You really don't have a leg to stand on. I don't know why people rush to "bullying" or the "equality authority". This really undermines people who are genuinely being bullied or treated differently because of sex/sexual orientation/race. It's not bullying to be asked to work the hours you were contracted for and it's certainly not unequal.

First things first - your personal arrangements or circumstances are of no concern to the company. It simply does not come into it. They don't have to take this into account. End of.

You signed a contract for a job that was 9 - 5:30. You are required to work those hours unless the company allows otherwise, which it did for a time. Mention of your personal commitments is irrelevant.

You accepted the job with those terms and the day after you told the person who hired you that you'd walk if you didn't get the hours you wanted?? That's shocking behavior and any sympathy I had for your situation evaporated with that.

"And besides if I raise the issue now, it may take 2 weeks to resolve with several meetings etc, as I intend to bring this up as a form of bullying, and as long as I have a grievance of that nature in, they cannot fire me just like that... "
Yes they can and if they think you are about to start a lot of trouble they absolutely will! If you want to keep the job, you need to work their way. If you don't you'll need to follow the offer you made the after you started.

The OP terms of employment were altered when she made the agreement with her previous manager. As a mother she is entitled to work and to receive reasonable accommodation to do so. Her previous manager obviously though so and thankfully there is legislation in place to protect her even if her current manager doesn't feel that way.

There is nothing shocking about the behaviour of the OP and she doesn't have to "work their way" to keep her job.

Your attitude is shocking, I'm just glad that legislation exists to protect employees from employers with that attitude.

Mrs OBumble

pollypocket10 wrote: »

The OP terms of employment were altered when she made the agreement with her previous manager. As a mother she is entitled to work and to receive reasonable accommodation to do so. Her previous manager obviously though so and thankfully there is legislation in place to protect her even if her current manager doesn't feel that way.

There is nothing shocking about the behaviour of the OP and she doesn't have to "work their way" to keep her job.

Your attitude is shocking, I'm just glad that legislation exists to protect employees from employers with that attitude.

Please give us a link to the legislation, especially the bit that says that mothers have a right to work.



TBH, my own reaction is more akin to the previous posters: the OP's behaviour in demanding a change of terms of employment on day two is pretty reprehensive, IMHO. Would have been fine if she'd negotiated BEFORE accepting the job - and it would have gone in writing to, so the current situation wouldn't have arisen.

LegacyUser

I have sought legal advice in relation to this, and they are trying to unilateraly change my working hours without negotion. Even if it was a verbal contract, it has become best practice and I've come to rely on those hours...

Micdug: Just to clear things up.. I didn't DEMAND my hours be changed on day two, and bearing in mind this was BEFORE I signed any contract. I simply underestimated the travel time when I accepted the job, Theory -v- Practice with public transport etc, and I simple approached my manager saying, "due to this reason..I would like to start and finish earlier if it was acceptable/if they could accommodate if not, I was sorry I underestimated the travelling time, and they could give the job to the next best candidate"... They knew I was a single parent at the interview....I was in no way DEMANDING they change my hours on my second day. Who do you think I think I am???!!! lol... funny how things can be taken up sooo wrong on the tinternet!

Also there is grounds for victimisation, if I can prove I am the only person who's times etc are being logged.

Also this was not just a once off incident in relation to his behaviour and attitude towards me, I have kept notes of other occassions. And I do not think they can still fire me with a grievance of this nature lodged. They have been informed I have sought legal advice in relation to it, and I was advised to seek an amicable remedy with my employer myself first. Exactly how would it reflect on them if a week or so AFTER a complaint is made I am fired, without any prior warnings or disciplinary action taken against me for ANYTHING? I think a key fact here is there has NEVER in all the time I have been working there ANY warning or anything in relation to my job performance or hours, or time keeping etc.. NO issues whatsoever.

I'll let the facts speak for themselves.

Thanks to everyone for your input. Only time will tell now what way it will go.

mrsbyrne

In my experience of these situations, the management themselves probably have no problem with, and may be very pleased with the standard of the OPs work. Where the problems arise is when colleagues of the OP will go to the supervisor/manager and say "well i want to change my hours as well. if the manager says "well, were just allowing Mary to work these hours because she has childcare issues..." then you have a situation were the employee without a childcare issue is now being discriminated against. I am convinced that that is what has occurred here. It may not be just one colleague, it could be several. and they would be within their perfect rights to complain....Easiest route for management to take is to remove the source of the problem, in this case the OP, which, despite what several of you seem to think, they are legitimately entitled to do. Why do you think that a person cannot be sacked simply because she is a mother?!? The OP can make a complaint to the LRC under the Unfair Dismissals Act, and its well worth a crack because in unfair dismissals cases the onus is on the employer to prove that he/she did not unfairly sack the employee. But i think the case will not be proven as the employer will state that the employee "frustrated the terms of her contract" by being "unavailable to work the required hours". All this is just my own opinion. please dont let me stop you going your own way.

Shelflife

mrsbyrne wrote: »

In my experience of these situations, the management themselves probably have no problem with, and may be very pleased with the standard of the OPs work. Where the problems arise is when colleagues of the OP will go to the supervisor/manager and say "well i want to change my hours as well. if the manager says "well, were just allowing Mary to work these hours because she has childcare issues..." then you have a situation were the employee without a childcare issue is now being discriminated against. I am convinced that that is what has occurred here. It may not be just one colleague, it could be several. and they would be within their perfect rights to complain....Easiest route for management to take is to remove the source of the problem, in this case the OP, which, despite what several of you seem to think, they are legitimately entitled to do. Why do you think that a person cannot be sacked simply because she is a mother?!? The OP can make a complaint to the LRC under the Unfair Dismissals Act, and its well worth a crack because in unfair dismissals cases the onus is on the employer to prove that he/she did not unfairly sack the employee. But i think the case will not be proven as the employer will state that the employee "frustrated the terms of her contract" by being "unavailable to work the required hours". All this is just my own opinion. please dont let me stop you going your own way.

This makes sense to me, i would just add that the OP may have some hope in the fact that she has worked her hours since the start and they "become" part of her contract.

pollypocket10

JustMary wrote: »

Please give us a link to the legislation, especially the bit that says that mothers have a right to work.



TBH, my own reaction is more akin to the previous posters: the OP's behaviour in demanding a change of terms of employment on day two is pretty reprehensive, IMHO. Would have been fine if she'd negotiated BEFORE accepting the job - and it would have gone in writing to, so the current situation wouldn't have arisen.

I don't see where she demanded anything, she realised the commute was going to be an issue, explained this to the employer as soon as she could and they offered her an alternative arrangement... no problem

Here you will find a guide to the legislation http://www.equality.ie/index.asp?locID=106&docID=52

This in a extract outlining what reasonable accommodation is which employers are obliged to make under the act.

They are effective and practical measures to adapt the
employer’s place of business including:
• the adaptation of premises and equipment;
• patterns of working time;
• distribution of tasks; or
• the provision of training or integration resources.
The employer is not obliged to provide any treatment, facility or
thing that the person might ordinarily or reasonably provide for
himself or herself.

Full acts & amendments are here:

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/1998/a2198.pdf
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2004/A2404.pdf

You know when I was studying this legislation and similar cases which arose I could never understand how employers could be stupid enough to get caught out. I mean I though that if they didn't have the compassion to take measures to create a more equal workplace, I thought at the very least they would do it to avoid legal action.

In my experience of these situations, the management themselves probably have no problem with, and may be very pleased with the standard of the OPs work. Where the problems arise is when colleagues of the OP will go to the supervisor/manager and say "well i want to change my hours as well. if the manager says "well, were just allowing Mary to work these hours because she has childcare issues..." then you have a situation were the employee without a childcare issue is now being discriminated against. I am convinced that that is what has occurred here. It may not be just one colleague, it could be several. and they would be within their perfect rights to complain....Easiest route for management to take is to remove the source of the problem, in this case the OP, which, despite what several of you seem to think, they are legitimately entitled to do. Why do you think that a person cannot be sacked simply because she is a mother?!? The OP can make a complaint to the LRC under the Unfair Dismissals Act, and its well worth a crack because in unfair dismissals cases the onus is on the employer to prove that he/she did not unfairly sack the employee. But i think the case will not be proven as the employer will state that the employee "frustrated the terms of her contract" by being "unavailable to work the required hours". All this is just my own opinion. please dont let me stop you going your own way.

Do you think an employer would be legitimately entitled to sack a disabled employee because the other employees complained that their disability was accommodated in the workplace? Discrimination because of family status is prohibited and treated the same way.

Those without childcare issues are not being discriminated against and are not covered under the act.

A mother can be sacked, but not BECAUSE she is a mother!

micdug

pollypocket10 wrote: »

I don't see where she demanded anything, she realised the commute was going to be an issue, explained this to the employer as soon as she could and they offered her an alternative arrangement... no problem

Here you will find a guide to the legislation http://www.equality.ie/index.asp?locID=106&docID=52

This in a extract outlining what reasonable accommodation is which employers are obliged to make under the act.



Full acts & amendments are here:

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/1998/a2198.pdf
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2004/A2404.pdf

Since when has having a child become a disability? Though badly laid out on the equality authorities site, these were specific to those that have a disability. Even then you left out the bit about disproportionate impact which applies in a lot of scenarios. So you don't have to hire a disabled person as a labourer for example.

pollypocket10 wrote: »

You know when I was studying this legislation and similar cases which arose I could never understand how employers could be stupid enough to get caught out. I mean I thought that if they didn't have the compassion to take measures to create a more equal workplace, I thought at the very least they would do it to avoid legal action.

Some employers like some employees are stupid! That said most Irish Managers are becoming experts in managing underperforming people out while protecting the organisation from legal action. It's generally smaller companies who make mistakes that land them in trouble with rights commissioners/labour court etc because they are not aware of legislation. Not defending the employers that do this but the reality is employers are in the business of making money and not accomadating employees preferences. That said employers don't get rid of performing employees! It costs to much to retrain etc.

pollypocket10 wrote: »

Do you think an employer would be legitimately entitled to sack a disabled employee because the other employees complained that their disability was accommodated in the workplace? Discrimination because of family status is prohibited and treated the same way.

Strawman argument. Employer is perfectly entitled to set working hours without consideration of personal circumstances.

pollypocket10 wrote: »

Those without childcare issues are not being discriminated against and are not covered under the act.

A mother can be sacked, but not BECAUSE she is a mother!

?

True, nobody is being sacked for being a mother. She is being asked to work the hours on her contract and she may lose her job if she declines to do this. A reasonable request. Where is the evidence that she is being discriminated against because she is a mother? Your attempt to link the two are tenous at best. Rather than "interpreting" legislation as suits your worldview, why don't you look at the actual rulings which have been made by rights commisioners and the labour court: http://www.labourcourt.ie/labour/labour.nsf/LookupPageLink/HomeRecommendations
You'll find little or nothing on this simply because it's not an equality issue. You would have to prove that because she was a female, or had a family, that she was given more onerous terms/less pay etc etc than other employees none of which is happening.

pollypocket10

Since when has having a child become a disability? Though badly laid out on the equality authorities site, these were specific to those that have a disability. Even then you left out the bit about disproportionate impact which applies in a lot of scenarios. So you don't have to hire a disabled person as a labourer for example.

I merely used disability as an example as it one of the nine grounds that people find easiest to understand. The information I linked to is in relation to discrimination under ANY of the nine grounds. The one in question in the OP's case is family status.

The disproportionate impact is not relevant in the OP's case which is what I am advising on... I don't see any reason to provide a full overview of this complex legislation.

Some employers like some employees are stupid! That said most Irish Managers are becoming experts in managing underperforming people out while protecting the organisation from legal action. It's generally smaller companies who make mistakes that land them in trouble with rights commissioners/labour court etc because they are not aware of legislation. Not defending the employers that do this but the reality is employers are in the business of making money and not accomadating employees preferences. That said employers don't get rid of performing employees! It costs to much to retrain etc.

This is not a question of accommodating employees preferences. It is a question of accommodating the needs people who fall into certain classes and employers are obliged to do so whether they want to or not.

Strawman argument. Employer is perfectly entitled to set working hours without consideration of personal circumstances.

Not if it leaves any of the people covered under the nine grounds at a disadvantage. There have actually been cases where employers have tried to introduce new working hours but they were found to be discriminatory because statistically more females than males in the company could comply.

True, nobody is being sacked for being a mother. She is being asked to work the hours on her contract and she may lose her job if she declines to do this. A reasonable request. Where is the evidence that she is being discriminated against because she is a mother? Your attempt to link the two are tenous at best. Rather than "interpreting" legislation as suits your worldview, why don't you look at the actual rulings which have been made by rights commisioners and the labour court: http://www.labourcourt.ie/labour/lab...ecommendations
You'll find little or nothing on this simply because it's not an equality issue. You would have to prove that because she was a female, or had a family, that she was given more onerous terms/less pay etc etc than other employees none of which is happenin

Firstly if this was to lead to dismissal then she would being dismissed because her family status means she cannot comply with the requested hours. What is written in her contract is irrelevant as she came to an agreement to alter her working hours with her employer. The request to now change them is not reasonable because her family status means she cannot comply.

I have studied the subject for six years and also completed my thesis in this area so I am more than familiar with rulings in the area.

There is some good case studies at the link you provided but as the first point of call for equality cases is the Equality Tribunal and many rarely make it beyond this point you should find more relevant info here. http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/Database-of-Decisions/

The OP would not need to prove anything that is not happening?? She simply needs to establish a prima facie case that she is being discriminated against because of her family status. The onus then switches to the employer to prove that they are not and have taken steps to accommodate her family status. The fact that she is now put under scrutiny that her colleagues are not subjected to could be seen as bullying. It would remain to be seen if this could escalate to a case of victimisation the OP should record all of this in case it does.

There is actually a very similar case of a hotel sales employee whose contract stated field sales would be a requirement. In practice it wasn't required for the first 12 months or so but new management took over she they asked her to go on the road. She discovered in practice she couldn't comply as because she was a single mother she needed to be within a reasonable travelling distance of her sons place of childcare in case o0f emergency. A number of meetings were held and management became more and more insistent that she go on the road as per her contract. I can't recall if this ended in dismissal or if the employee terminated or if she continued in employment. She did take a case and they were found to be discriminatory and ordered to pay damages. When I have time I will search it out and post a link.

rainbowtrout

pollypocket10 wrote: »

She simply needs to establish a prima facie case that she is being discriminated against because of her family status.

It has nothing to do with her family status. She is required to work the hours set out in her contract and she is not willing to do so currently because of an arrangement she had with the previous manager.

What would happen if she had an arrangement with the previous manager to work 10-6.30 instead of 9-5.30 because the first bus didn't leave her area until 8.45 in the morning, but then the new manager told her that she was needed from 9-5.30. Would she be calling 'discrimination and bullying' because she lived in an area with poor public transport links?

I don't think the manager is completely in the right and has approached this the wrong way but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask a person to ask the hours they are contracted to do. It's of no concern to the manager how the OP gets to work, how long it takes to get to work or how she manages her childcare arrangements.

pollypocket10

rainbowtrout wrote: »

It has nothing to do with her family status. She is required to work the hours set out in her contract and she is not willing to do so currently because of an arrangement she had with the previous manager.

What would happen if she had an arrangement with the previous manager to work 10-6.30 instead of 9-5.30 because the first bus didn't leave her area until 8.45 in the morning, but then the new manager told her that she was needed from 9-5.30. Would she be calling 'discrimination and bullying' because she lived in an area with poor public transport links?

I don't think the manager is completely in the right and has approached this the wrong way but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask a person to ask the hours they are contracted to do. It's of no concern to the manager how the OP gets to work, how long it takes to get to work or how she manages her childcare arrangements.

It is specifically to do with her family status. The hours were agreed because of childcare issues.

In the case of bus times it would have nothing to do with the employment equality act because living in an area with poor public transport availability is not one of the nine grounds which you cannot discriminate against. However if it were they would too have a case.

Regardless of what hours were originally contracted, the terms of her contract were changed when she reached the agreement with the previous manager.