Leave policies - disparity

[Cats_pyjamas]

I'm going to speak fairly generally here. What is the view on the following? A friend works for a multinational.

The company brings out a new leave policy, titled 'Inclusive Leave Policy'. Within this there is a statement about streamlining policies and having common policies across the business. This new policy is beneficial to employees over previous terms, for example parental leave (paternity), is increased from 2 to 6 weeks. amongst other things such as partner leave to support IVF, bereavements ect.

However within the Inclusive Leave policy, there is small print which excludes a handful of business units. Surely this makes this policy exclusive not inclusive. One site in particular has two business units based there, one of these units follows the new policy, the other is excluded. Would there be any grounds for a grievance?

[StevieBee]

That's disgusting. I'd be polishing up your CV if I were you. I wouldn't work for a company like that. Speak to ACAS if you like but i'd be off like a shot!

(That's the standard response, I believe!! )

Joking aside...

Cats_pyjamas said:

Would there be any grounds for a grievance?

You would first need to know the grounds for why one business unit is excluded from the policy. I would imagine that there is a reason and any grievance would be found in that reason rather than in relation to the policy itself.

[jonsp]

Cats_pyjamas said:

one of these units follows the new policy, the other is excluded. Would there be any grounds for a grievance?

Is there a valid business reason for this?

[Cats_pyjamas]

Thanks,

I think what is most gauling is the terminology used, whilst most people are pragmatic and understand some areas of the business 'may' need different terms and conditions. The company has seemed to use the terminology 'Inclusive' because it sounds good rather than because it is factually correct.

I believe the friend has emailed the Chief of Staff at head office in London, and has contact their union. The response from head office was typically wishy-washy, and the union response wasn't particularly inspiring either...from what I'm lead to believe.

[Jasandjules]

A company is not obliged to offer more favourable terms to everyone..... I don't see a basis for a Grievance in the terms of "other people now have better benefits that I do"

Do they state a sound business reason for the other departments being excluded in any event?

[Cats_pyjamas]

The new policy only mentions what business units are excluded (which are arguably the most profitable ones), with no justification. Just 'please refer to local BU Policy'.

[Countdown]

It would be odd for them to exclude a small number of people without good reason.