Working From Home

[Drakva]

Brief facts. I am a single parent with a 12 year old daughter who I have sole custody of. By agreement with one of the partners I modified my working pattern to work from home one day a week. The entire firm was made fully aware of this change and no objections were raised at the time of the change or at any other time until now. My contract was not amended to reflect the change. Wind forward 7 months without a problem and I have been told that I may no longer work from home. My role has not changed, there have been no changes to the way the firm operates its business.

I can well appreciate that lots of factors influence the legality of a situation however given the broad brush details above, where do I stand?

[teaboy2]

Re: Working From Home

Did you make a statutory application to the employer when you first requested to work from home?

Info on your rights to flexible working time can be found here - https://www.gov.uk/flexible-working/overview

If you had a written confirmation from them approving your original request then that would have given you a rock solid case to dispute the employers action. If all you have is verbal then its not so easy, though you could argue that as they verbally agreed, and as you have physically been working from home 1 day a week (can you prove this in any way i.e. emails etc) for 7 months, then it is now an implied term of contract. Not only that, the law of estoppel prevents them from unreasonably changing their minds 7 months after the original decision!

But what was the reason given to you for the sudden change, who objected and why leave it 7 months. And also why do you need to work from home 1 day a week when your daughters 12 years old, or is it related to child care needs/arrangements?

[Openlaw15]

Re: Working From Home

Brief facts. I am a single parent with a 12 year old daughter who I have sole custody of. By agreement with one of the partners I modified my working pattern to work from home one day a week. The entire firm was made fully aware of this change and no objections were raised at the time of the change or at any other time until now. My contract was not amended to reflect the change. Wind forward 7 months without a problem and I have been told that I may no longer work from home. My role has not changed, there have been no changes to the way the firm operates its business.

I can well appreciate that lots of factors influence the legality of a situation however given the broad brush details above, where do I stand?

It's sounds like discrimination. Ask for them to put in writing why there has been this change in that you are no longer permitted to work from home. Do you have a union?

[teaboy2]

Re: Working From Home

It's sounds like discrimination. Ask for them to put in writing why there has been this change in that you are no longer permitted to work from home. Do you have a union?

There's nothing to suggest, as yet, that there's any discrimination in breach of the equality act 2010. Though i agree asking them to put it in writing their reasons is a good idea.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Working From Home

There's nothing to suggest, as yet, that there's any discrimination in breach of the equality act 2010. Though i agree asking them to put it in writing their reasons is a good idea.

You really think that? Based on what exactly? Do you know that the EU principles are 'legitimate aim' and 'principle of proportionality'....do you know the EA 2010 uses these terms.. do you know that Equality Act and all other anti-discriminate legislation comes from EU principles? At least bother to research an issue if you do not know it.

[wales01man]

Re: Working From Home

Openlaw
You need to stop dishing out such posts as the one above which to me reads as if you are the only one that is right before long I expect you will no longer posting on here when the insults start on you.
The OP wants help not a big argument between posters

[ostell]

Re: Working From Home

It could be as simple as the 'elfs are saying it's not possible, Health and safety are saying you can't do it as your work place could present dangers that they can't control and may make the company liable. Stand back and wait for flack!! I've heard similar voiced before.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Working From Home

Openlaw
You need to stop dishing out such posts as the one above which to me reads as if you are the only one that is right before long I expect you will no longer posting on here when the insults start on you.
The OP wants help not a big argument between posters

Well, if persons are note sure in given legal problem question this should be indicating as it's misleading to just say no when in fact the answer may be yes. Employment law is as complex as it is diverse and as someone who has studied law academically I know there is more than one way to look at legal problem question.

[teaboy2]

Re: Working From Home

You really think that? Based on what exactly? Do you know that the EU principles are 'legitimate aim' and 'principle of proportionality'....do you know the EA 2010 uses these terms.. do you know that Equality Act and all other anti-discriminate legislation comes from EU principles? At least bother to research an issue if you do not know it.

You clearly need to do some research yourself, as if you did then you'd know also that employers can legally refuse employees the request for flexible working times or from working from home for various reasons. Such as the following examples:

• planned structural changes
• the burden of additional costs
• quality or standards will suffer
• they won't be able to recruit additional staff
• performance will suffer
• won't be able to reorganise work among existing staff
• will struggle to meet customer demand
• lack of work during the periods you propose to work.

In some cases they can also request those previously granted flexible hours to work according to original contractual terms - Such as say when the employees performance has suffered whilst on flexible hours, or due to structural changes! Just because its extremely rare for an employer to ask an employee working flexible hours to revert back to their original terms of contract, it doesn't mean the employer is acting unlawfully by requiring the employee to do so!

Well, if persons are note sure in given legal problem question this should be indicating as it's misleading to just say no when in fact the answer may be yes. Employment law is as complex as it is diverse and as someone who has studied law academically I know there is more than one way to look at legal problem question.

And where specifically did is say no, there was no discrimination?! I never actually said that did i! Hence why in my first post i asked the OP "And also why do you need to work from home 1 day a week when your daughters 12 years old, or is it related to child care needs/arrangements?" Key part of that question lies in regards to child care needs!!

I also said in my second post "There's nothing to suggest, as yet, that there's any discrimination in breach of the equality act 2010." the key phrase there are "There's nothing to suggest, as yet" - We do not have enough information to be able to determine either way if there has been any discrimination of any kind against the OP. To suggest there is, without yet knowing the relevant facts, as per you did in your first post. Is highly irresponsible and does nothing to help the OP other than to possibly lead them up the wrong path. Which in turn would result in them losing in any legal action they take!!

As for your actually second post. Well i won't even comment on that outburst as what you were trying to say their doesn't change what the law currently states in regards to what employers rights are, as well as those rights of an employee!

[Openlaw15]

Re: Working From Home

Brief facts. I am a single parent with a 12 year old daughter who I have sole custody of. By agreement with one of the partners I modified my working pattern to work from home one day a week. The entire firm was made fully aware of this change and no objections were raised at the time of the change or at any other time until now. My contract was not amended to reflect the change. Wind forward 7 months without a problem and I have been told that I may no longer work from home. My role has not changed, there have been no changes to the way the firm operates its business.

I can well appreciate that lots of factors influence the legality of a situation however given the broad brush details above, where do I stand?

Ops immediate facts:
Single custodial parent/ 12 year old daughter;
Agreement with company's partner: modified working, ie 'home one day a week.' Entire firm fully aware;
Contract not amended to reflect the change;
7 months without a problem
Now informed cannot work form home. Employ role not changed; no changes to the way the firm operates its business.
No objections raised until now;

Law employer cannot discriminate against protected persons (ie women): Equality Act 2010 unless the any discrimination were legitimate and balanced fairly (ie proportionate). Facts: Op was permitted to work home one day per week (verbal term) by one partner but all interested person were aware of situation. The op is female and it could be said that she is made worse off than any male comparators who generally may not be so affected in their employ, which may give rise to either direct or indirect discrimination.

There must be a legitimate aim (ie genuine reasons) if an employer were to rely on any defences to discrimination. The facts for any defences at this point are unknown rather all that is known is that there are have been no changes to OP's place of work by way of employment specific roles or to the way the company operates its business. Unless the employer has a good defence it will fail at the legitimate aim stage

[Openlaw15]

Re: Working From Home

Did you make a statutory application to the employer when you first requested to work from home?

Info on your rights to flexible working time can be found here - https://www.gov.uk/flexible-working/overview

If you had a written confirmation from them approving your original request then that would have given you a rock solid case to dispute the employers action. If all you have is verbal then its not so easy, though you could argue that as they verbally agreed, and as you have physically been working from home 1 day a week (can you prove this in any way i.e. emails etc) for 7 months, then it is now an implied term of contract. Not only that, the law of estoppel prevents them from unreasonably changing their minds 7 months after the original decision!

But what was the reason given to you for the sudden change, who objected and why leave it 7 months. And also why do you need to work from home 1 day a week when your daughters 12 years old, or is it related to child care needs/arrangements?

Estoppel relates to a specific defence in contract where one party has taken legal action against the other. The other may estopp the cause of action in some circumstance, therefore. Estoppel, however is a principle where it may only be use as a shield as Per Court of Appeal judge Denning in the relevant cases/ common law wherein subsequent claims of estoppel developed the doctrine to cover additional principles such as detrimental reliance.

[teaboy2]

Re: Working From Home

@Openlaw15 - Regardless of what you posted above. There is no evidence to suggest there is any act of discrimination having occurred against the OP! Her/his 12 year old daugther would attend school, so where is the reason arising for the need to work from home for one 1 day! As it can not be for child care for the entire full day, unless the child is disabled or ill and therefore requires such additional care that requires the OP to be at home 1 full day of the week. Or unless the OP works Saturdays as well as weekdays - Where the need to be home to look after his/her daughter would be obvious to all!

Also no formal or statutory process appears to have been followed - it was all verbal and no written statutory (or non statutory) application for flexible hours had been made - Therefore no changes in terms of his/her contract via formal variation of contractual terms (written letter confirming acceptance of flexible hours and what that entails (i.e. hours of work, days or work, place of work) is enough to be deemed a formal variation of contractual terms). Which takes place when flexible hours are formally granted in writing!

As for your comments on Estoppel - Fact of a matter is, one can not go back on a promise/agreement they made earlier if it would be clearly unfair or cause detriment to the other party, purely in order to revert back to an earlier state that existed prior to the promise/agreement being made!

The fact they allowed him/her to work 7 months means they gave consideration to his/her offer to work from home for 1 day of each week, which prevents them from going back on the agreement, as doing so would be breach of contract. If however they had not allowed him/her to work a single hour or day then the law deems that as there being no consideration given, therefore the employee can not enforce any such promise/agreement! So as they allowed the OP to work from home for 7 months then clearly consideration had been given, therefore the OP can enforce the promise/agreement in court under promissory estoppel laws as a breach of contract claim! Just like you can take a car sales man to court after they sold a car that you had already put a deposit on in return for them promising to keep the car for you, to enforce the promise the car sales man had given you to keep the car for you in return to you pay a deposit towards the car!

So it doesn't relate to only being a tool for a defence in court where one party has taken legal action - As i can be used to enforce a promise made where consideration was given by defendant party - i.e. a shield in defense against being treated unfairly or suffering a detriment as a result of the defendants breach of promise/agreement! Which in this case the employer had clearly given consideration as demonstrated by the fact the OP worked from home 1 day of the week, each week for 7 months!

[mariefab]

Re: Working From Home

Another way of looking at this could be that the mutual agreement for Drakva to work at home 1 day a week was a variation of the employment contract.
The fact that the (written) contract wasn't amended shouldn't matter. After all a contract of employment is far more than simply the words on a document.
Unless it was also agreed at the time of the variation that it was a temporary arrangement; I would suggest that Drakva's consent would be required to vary the contract again.

[ostell]

Re: Working From Home

as someone who has studied law academically I know there is more than one way to look at legal problem question.

That's your problem, no experience, just what has been read in books and failing to look at the big picture.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Working From Home

@Openlaw15 - Regardless of what you posted above. There is no evidence to suggest there is any act of discrimination having occurred against the OP! Her/his 12 year old daugther would attend school, so where is the reason arising for the need to work from home for one 1 day! As it can not be for child care for the entire full day, unless the child is disabled or ill and therefore requires such additional care that requires the OP to be at home 1 full day of the week. Or unless the OP works Saturdays as well as weekdays - Where the need to be home to look after his/her daughter would be obvious to all!

Also no formal or statutory process appears to have been followed - it was all verbal and no written statutory (or non statutory) application for flexible hours had been made - Therefore no changes in terms of his/her contract via formal variation of contractual terms (written letter confirming acceptance of flexible hours and what that entails (i.e. hours of work, days or work, place of work) is enough to be deemed a formal variation of contractual terms). Which takes place when flexible hours are formally granted in writing!

As for your comments on Estoppel - Fact of a matter is, one can not go back on a promise/agreement they made earlier if it would be clearly unfair or cause detriment to the other party, purely in order to revert back to an earlier state that existed prior to the promise/agreement being made!

The fact they allowed him/her to work 7 months means they gave consideration to his/her offer to work from home for 1 day of each week, which prevents them from going back on the agreement, as doing so would be breach of contract. If however they had not allowed him/her to work a single hour or day then the law deems that as there being no consideration given, therefore the employee can not enforce any such promise/agreement! So as they allowed the OP to work from home for 7 months then clearly consideration had been given, therefore the OP can enforce the promise/agreement in court under promissory estoppel laws as a breach of contract claim! Just like you can take a car sales man to court after they sold a car that you had already put a deposit on in return for them promising to keep the car for you, to enforce the promise the car sales man had given you to keep the car for you in return to you pay a deposit towards the car!

So it doesn't relate to only being a tool for a defence in court where one party has taken legal action - As i can be used to enforce a promise made where consideration was given by defendant party - i.e. a shield in defense against being treated unfairly or suffering a detriment as a result of the defendants breach of promise/agreement! Which in this case the employer had clearly given consideration as demonstrated by the fact the OP worked from home 1 day of the week, each week for 7 months!

I suggest you revise estoppel. I had to do essays and problem questions on estoppel which theme notwithstanding contract, was consideration (benefit principle) based on the common law. What you're saying is misrepresenting estoppel, which is not helpful except distracting.