Flexible working - which side are you on?
May 15, 2008
Today’s news that the right to request flexible working is to be extended to parents of children aged up to 16 seems to have caused a dramatic split in opinion, and I enjoyed watching an interesting debate on the issue whilst munching my cereal this morning.
This issue has been in and out of the news for months now, as HR Director for Sainsbury’s, Immelda Walsh, has been carrying out a review of the current situation to assess whether an extension was warranted. Her conclusion was that parents who have young teenagers need flexibility as much those with very young children (the current right is for parents of children up to age six, or up to 18 for disabled children).
The outcome has been praised by everyone except, it seems, for many owners of small businesses. Many of these people feel that the extension, which will mean a further 4.5 million people have the right to request flexible working, will put unreasonable pressure on businesses, will be very difficult to manage and will leave them out of pocket when having to make alternative arrangements, which often involves the employment of temporary staff.
I may be being very naive here, but because the law gives parents the ‘right to request’ flexible working and not the ‘right to flexible working’, doesn’t that mean that if allowing flexibility would put the company in a difficult position financially or practically, the employer is entitled to refuse the request? I understand that there’s a risk that the decision could be challenged in an Employment Tribunal and it could be quite difficult to determine what is an acceptable reason for refusal, but I think employers shouldn’t panic too much just because the law has changed, chances are they won’t suddenly get inundated with requests, and handling each request should make it easier to handle the next one, as many implications and possible solutions will already have been considered before.
This change in legislation is bound to throw up lots more questions and probably new case law, and I look forward to hearing how the issue develops.
Comments
Got something to say?