Full-time positon that can't accept

woodtree

Looking for an unbiased opinion/advice from you good folks here. I've a family member who's been working on a forced 3-day / 2-day week which started approx one year ago. She since went on maternity leave and has just returned back to work and is entitled to lone parent's allowance as the wages are not very high. We've been able to manage child-minding between family members on these hours when she's in work, but can't handle more for a variety of time / physical reasons.

She has now been offered a full-time position but after doing the maths the child minding that would be required she would be financially worse off, and that's from a fairly precarious situation as it is. Her employer offered her the position and she's outlined the above situation and declined, and was then asked to put it in writing. A letter has now been sent by registered post offering her the position and requiring a written response in two days.

From my point of view it appears to be an ultimatum, to take job on these terms or leave. Certainly it seems a very legalese way of doing things. Any ideas on what the employer is trying to do, and why. Also what rights/responsibilities does she have? She going to Citizens Advice to get their view tomorrow.

Thanks in advance!

Equality

It is simple. The employer needs to get rid of staff, preferably without paying redundancy. The employer can calcuate her financial position, and knows she can't afford to return to work full time (childcare is an obvious expense). It is a way of reducing staff, at no cost. The employer may want to hire a relative, or may want to give more hours to another member of staff.

There is legal precendent in England which requires an employer to make an effort to facilitate a staff member with a disability or with sole responsbility for minding a child.

Your relative should consider replying in writing, explaining that as a sole parent she is requesting that she be permitted to continue working part time.

If the employer is public sector they will take this request very seriously, because competent public sector managers are aware of legal precedent in this regard.

(Note that as she is on lone parents this is not affected by her requesting part time, if she were on jobseekers requesting part time work would mean losing any jobseekers payment she was receiving).

tatli_lokma

woodtree wrote: »

I've a family member who's been working on a forced 3-day / 2-day week which started approx one year ago.

this implies to me that she was originally employed on a full time basis and now the employer is in a position to return to that level of employment. They are offering her first refusal on that. However her circumstances have changed and fulltime no longer suits her.

It looks to me that the employer needs a fulltimer. It is often more cost effective to hire one person fulltime than two people part time. I would agree that it is an ultimatum - take the full time job or leave because a part time worker no longer suits the needs of the business.

In terms of her rights, the details as to how the short time working hours came about in the first place and how long it has been going on for and what the initial intention was when putting her on short time hours - what I mean is, was it always advised that this was a temporary measure and that they would hope to return to fulltime in the future.
All of this is relevant as to what her rights are.

Whilst I do feel sorry for your relative, I can see the employers point of view - they need to return to having a fulltime worker as per the original situation. If they are genuinely interested in keeping her, they may be able to offer a higher salary or whatever, but I can't really blame them if indeed they do need a full time employee.

woodtree

Quick update - Citizens advice have come to the same conclusion too, though they promised to raise the issue at their 'weekly meeting' as she's been on the reduced hours for over 1 year and this counts for something, but in their own words it is doubtful anything can be done. Also the notice period was too short, but this only delays the inevitable. At this stage the best she can do is write a letter outlining her dilemma and appeal to the employers. Either way I expect she'll be on the lookout for a new part-time position!

Thanks Equality and Little Ted for your opinions, it's all helped settle things and plan a course of action in all our minds.

Mrs OBumble

There's something in the back of my mind about an obligation on employers to facilitate part time work arrangements. Don't know if it's a legal requirement or not, maybe it's just a recommendation or suchlike.

Anyways ...

And even though employing two people seems to cost more - it doesn't always, if the company can pay the lower rate PRSI on both of them.

Maybe the company is going down the legal route 'cos they feel they have to, just in case, to cover their a**.

Is there any way she could cover their legal bases ... resign without issue .. but talk them around to exploring job-sharing options?

tatli_lokma

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

And even though employing two people seems to cost more - it doesn't always, if the company can pay the lower rate PRSI on both of them.

Maybe the company is going down the legal route 'cos they feel they have to, just in case, to cover their a**.

Is there any way she could cover their legal bases ... resign without issue .. but talk them around to exploring job-sharing options?

No it doesn't always cost more in the wages, but depending on the hourly rate it very well might do. Plus employing someone does not just come down to their pay - there are insurance costs and other overheads that need to be taken into consideration.

Equality

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

There's something in the back of my mind about an obligation on employers to facilitate part time work arrangements. Don't know if it's a legal requirement or not, maybe it's just a recommendation or suchlike.

Yes, she has a child so the employer must give VERY serious consideration to any application to work part time.

A cop (not in Ireland) took seriously high damages from an employer (police force) who required her to work shifts after her husband left. She could not get childcare around shift work, and resigned. I think it was hundreds rather than tens of thousands. The payout was high to encourage employers to facilitate carers who want to work part time (mostly because as a matter of public policy, the state otherwise has to pay lone parents, and the state would prefer that the mom kept her job, as it is cheaper for the state if she is working. )

tatli_lokma

Equality wrote: »

A cop (not in Ireland) took seriously high damages from an employer (police force) who required her to work shifts after her husband left. She could not get childcare around shift work, and resigned. I think it was hundreds rather than tens of thousands. The payout was high to encourage employers to facilitate carers who want to work part time (mostly because as a matter of public policy, the state otherwise has to pay lone parents, and the state would prefer that the mom kept her job, as it is cheaper for the state if she is working. )

Firstly, as you mention the situation you outline did not take place in Ireland. Therefore it can't be used as a precident.

I think a more practical approach would be to return to the process whereby OP's relative was placed on short time hours. If this procedure was not carried out properly, then they could have a claim to redundancy.

citizens information wrote:

A short-time situation arises where, due to a reduction in the amount of work to be done, your pay or hours are less than half the normal weekly amount. In both cases these must be temporary situations and your employer must notify you before they start, ideally by using Part A of form RP9 (pdf). Your employer can lay you off or put you on short time if it is in your contract of employment or it is custom and practice in your workplace. Otherwise your employer should not lay you off or put you on short time without your agreement. However if you do not agree you may be made redundant.

Claiming redundancy: If a lay-off or a short-time situation has continued for 4 weeks or more, or for 6 weeks in the last 13 weeks, you may claim a redundancy lump sum. If you claim redundancy in this way you are considered to have left your job voluntarily and therefore you will lose any right to notice or pay in lieu of notice from your employer. However if you have been laid off and you are subsequently made redundant by your employer you do not lose your notice entitlements.
Duration of lay off or short time: If you do not wish to claim redundancy but the lay-off or short-time situation continues, the question arises as to whether it is a temporary situation. If it becomes apparent that it is no longer temporary then the situation is now a redundancy rather than a lay-off or short-time working. It is the employer who initially decides whether or not there is a redundancy situation. If there is a dispute about this it should be referred to the Employment Appeals Tribunal to make a decision.

so given that this situation lasted almost a year, it could be argued that the staff member would have been in their rights to seek redundancy.

If a claim is made however, bear in mind that the company are now offering a return to full time. So the difficulty here is that the company are offering the staff member their original job back, so in that case I don't know how successful a redundancy claim would be - it all comes down to whether it is felt by the tribunal that redundancy should have been offered long ago.

OP - did they get a Part A form notifying them of the short time working arrangements?

Equality wrote: »

Yes, she has a child so the employer must give VERY serious consideration to any application to work part time.

I think the employers are giving serious consideration to the situation and are following procedure to the letter - the job was originally a full time job. The needs of the business now require a return to those hours. The staff member's situation has changed and it no longer suits them to return to full time work. All the employer has to do is prove that they have taken the staff members comments and suggestions on board and considered them, and then put forward a valid case that whilst these suggestions have been considered they are not deemed to be within the interests of the business. All they need is a strong business case as to why full time will be more beneficial than part time and they are covered. This is why they are asking the staff member to respond formally in writing to their offer.

woodtree

Little Ted - she honestly can't recall whether she received a part A form, but it was communicated in writing, otherwise an intriguing reply - will look into it. In the meantime she's given in a interim letter to employer pretty much as outlined above - that is stating that it is 'under consideration' and there wasn't enough time to make a full decision, both out of courtesy and to give more time. We'll put the full reply in writing pending Citizens Advice's response, but expect to outline the case for keeping her on as part-time. Apparently she's been told verbally there is only a full time position today.

Once again thanks all for the replies, was taken aback by the consideration it has been given.