Civil service flexitime proposal could have 'serious implications' in public service delivery

The Department of Public Expenditure said there were concerns that the introduction of flexitime accrual for blended workers “may create significant difficulty in rostering/scheduling staff cover in areas where a certain level of physical attendance on-site is required”. File photo

A proposal for a pilot programme of flexitime for civil servants who worked a mixture of at-home and in-office hours could have “serious implications for delivery of public services”, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has said.

This dispute between the department and the civil service staff panel was recently considered by the Civil Service Arbitration Board, which published a report on its findings.

The disagreement centred on the structure for pilot programmes for flexitime accrual as part of the new blended working framework. Flexible working hours, or flexitime, was introduced as a means to allow office-based staff to stagger their start or finish times to suit their own travel or home arrangements.

The department put forward proposals to test out four different approaches for how flexitime could work when some workers are doing a mixture of their weekly hours from home and in the office.

However, the civil servant staff panel said that while it was willing to consider a pilot, it could not agree to an “inconsistent” approach across the civil service.

“If one organisation could introduce full flexitime and flexi accrual for all its staff, then there is no cogent operational reason why others couldn’t,” the panel stated. The staff panel put forward the case that it had been proven that staff could be trusted to work remotely and productively during the pandemic.

The panel stated: “Access to flexi accrual for blended workers will not change this, nor is there evidence to support such a thesis. The staff panel are of the view that that the accrual of flexi leave would not result in operational problems or dilute necessary office attendance."

It asked the arbitration board to recommend that if a pilot is to be introduced, it should be consistent across the civil service.

However, the Department of Public Expenditure said there was an absence of “real-world experience” for how flexitime accrual might impact operations when there was a mixture of staff working at home and in the office.

It said there were concerns that the introduction of flexitime accrual for blended workers “may create significant difficulty in rostering/scheduling staff cover in areas where a certain level of physical attendance on-site is required”.

It said it put forward four proposals to allow comparison between different work areas. To adopt the single proposal put forward by the staff panel could have a negative impact on public services, it said.

The department stated: “Blended working alongside flexi accrual is a whole new way of working, and management need to be absolutely assured that, if it is to be deployed, it works for all stakeholders and not just employees.” 

What's your view on this issue?

You can tell us here

In its decision, the arbitration board set out two pilot schemes that should be adopted to test the most critical issues, and that civil service departments and offices should opt for one or the other in a pilot programme to be arranged over the coming months.

The first is for flexitime accrual to be allowed for all employees irrespective of work location, with the second allowing flexitime accrual for all blended working employees while in the office only.

“As the matter of flexitime accrual has considerable significance and potential impact both in the management context and for staff, it is considered that the pilot should be as far-reaching as possible and not restricted to a sample,” the board added.