Hybrid/WFH policy - term which could be viewed as discrimination

Tomw86

I'm just coming on to ask a question or gauge opinion on a recent change to our offices hybrid policy. Essentially management are looking for us to move from 2 days to 3 days in the office - in my view this is a move to get people to quit as they are overstaffed due to a recent merger and guaranteed they would not offer redundancies.

However, in the new policy it states that if you live more than 75km from the office you do not need to attend 3 days but can keep it at 2 days.

Now, my issue here is that we all have the same contracts with the same workplace stated so the only reason people who live 75kms away get this special treatment is due to geographical location and a decision on where to live which is down to them. Although geographical location is not a protected status, it is still something that would not have been given an exception prior to COVID and therefore should be aligned with all employees now.

For example, why not give the exemption to anyone without an address in Dublin? Or where commuting takes over 1 hour daily? An employee could live 75kms away but be able to commute in a quicker time than an employee living 50kms away depending on forms of public transport available (train quicker than bus for example).

Peoples views, or even experiences with something similar to this would be greatly appreciated. Can you pull the discrimination card here?
Cheers

Jim2007

As you say it does not meet the law's definition and you are free to choose where you live as well so, move 75Km out if it suits you.

Tomw86

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122860870#Comment_122860870

Thanks for the feedback - does it not meet the definition of indirect discrimination though? You cannot give someone with the same terms and conditions as you an added benefit. It would be different it was in our contracts, but it is not, it is only in a policy.

Jim2007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122860879#Comment_122860879

There are countless rules like this in organisations - rules for qualifying for bonuses, taking holidays, promotion etc… they are the same rules for everyone. You are arguing for special treatment because you don't met the criteria. If we followed your logic then we'd be asked to make exceptions for everyone and everything. It if the company were not applying the rules consistently, then you might have a moral argument.

Mrs OBumble

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122860879#Comment_122860879

It's not even indirect discrimination on an illegal basis, ie one of the big nine.

Discrimination on the basis of where you live is totally legal, unless it's a proxy for one of the protected categories.

dennyk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122860879#Comment_122860879

"Indirect discrimination" means discrimination which disproportionately affects people with a certain protected characteristic, even though it isn't specifically based on the characteristic itself. For example, you can't discriminate against employees for having curly hair, as that would have a disproportionate impact on employees of certain racial or ethnic backgrounds, even though hairstyle or hair type is not in itself explicitly protected. It would be challenging to prove that a policy based on the distance employees live from the office would itself be indirect discrimination, as whether a person lives more or less than 75km from a particular location has little or no correlation with any of those protected characteristics.

dazzler101

Do you have any family that are 75km away? Say that your relationship has fallen, and you are now residing with a member of your family permanently.

Jim2007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122862946#Comment_122862946

BS. The OP is not being discriminated on based on his location.

HurlingBoy

Sounds more like a head count reduction exercise. I think alot of companies are looking to reduce head count and use the WFH policies as a way of forcing people to leave. There is alot of caution with how the economy will fare with Trump being elected. Totally unfair to expect those within 75kms to come to office an extra day. Where you live should have no relevance.

Tomw86

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122892233#Comment_122892233

Yes, my view is it a headcount reduction excercise, we've more or less been told that in a recent company update.

The 75km thing is something I have objected to with HR as my commute vs. someone double the distance away (Tullamore as an example I used) is actually longer as they have a direct train to Tara Street whereas I am reliant on a bus with traffic plus a good walk either end. Where a person lives vs. works is their choice so allowing dispensation based on a 'radius from office' is not acceptable or fair.

Tomw86

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122868253#Comment_122868253

Yes, I had thought of this as I have an aunt in Cork that I could use. One person in the office commutes from Cork City currently so they couldn't really object.

I would rather just get the exemption to remain on 2 days a week or to have them treat everyone fairly and remove the 75km restriction within the policy as I don't feel it should be there in the first place.

LambshankRedemption

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122901440#Comment_122901440

Talk to your line manager. Mine didnt care where I worked so long as the work got done.

It is however very clearly a headcount reduction exercise, so if I was you I would not be making a big thing of this. You do not want to be on HR's radar at the moment. All you need on your file is some language about you being resistant to new policies, next thing you know you are no longer a team player and they have everything they need to let you go.

HurlingBoy

Managers generally won't care as long as the work is done and a manager won't want his\her direct report disgruntled if WFH is refused. However this is now been taking out of managers hands and HR are taking ownership of this. Companies are cutting small percentages and non compliance to coming into the office is being used as a criteria to let people go. HR can watch everything i.e badge access, days in office etc so best to still by the rules unless you want to be cut.

Tomw86

The thing is my work is being done, and increased exponentially during COVID when we were all WFH. I am the highest producer on the team which is tracked across the team based on clients I service and number of reports produced/reviewed.

There is a formal process to request to remain on your 2 days a week which goes through HR and I have commenced that process - as part of it I have suggested that they should remove the 75km radius exemption as it is not fair and does not consider commute times so perhaps they will take that onboard.

I wouldn't let it come to a scenario where they let me go as there would have to be a written warning pre-empting that but if they want me gone they can offer me a package to go and I would take it.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122916119#Comment_122916119

Employers are not required to be fair, they are only required not to discriminate on the basis of the nine grounds set out in equality legislation.