HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Flexible working after Maternity Leave
In Whiteman v CPS Interiors Ltd and others, the employment tribunal held that an employer properly handled a new mother’s rejected flexible working request to work from home.
Ms Whiteman, a designer for a company that refurbishes commercial premises, requested to reduce her hours on her return from maternity leave after having twins. Her employer accepted her request. However, the employer turned down Ms Whiteman’s request to work from home (apart from occasional office visits) and to do most of her work in the evenings (after 6pm). The employer considered that, although working at home primarily in the evenings might have been possible, it could not accommodate the homeworking request because:
- its collaborative way of working often involves designers together in a room looking at technical designs; and
- designs often have to be changed at short notice, something that would be difficult if the employee worked only at home in the evenings.
Ms Whiteman resigned, citing the handling of her flexible working request as the reason. She brought tribunal claims for breaches of the flexible working legislation, constructive dismissal and indirect sex discrimination. The employment tribunal rejected all her claims, stressing that there is no right to work flexibly.
In Smith v Gleacher Shacklock LLP, the employment tribunal held that it was not indirect sex discrimination for an investment banking firm to require a mother to work full time.
Ms Smith, a single parent working as an executive secretary for a small investment bank, was returning from maternity leave. She asked to work three days per week in the office, followed by homeworking on Thursdays and not working on Fridays.
Following a meeting, her employer turned down her flexible working request because of the:
- impact on the firm’s ability to look after clients,
- unpredictability of her role
- tight timescales for various tasks
- disproportionate pressure on the small team.
Recent examples were given of difficulties that would have occurred had Ms Smith not been in the office. The employer made various compromise suggestions, including that she could leave early for nursery runs and initially return on a part-time basis.
An agreement could not be reached and Ms Smith brought tribunal claims for indirect sex discrimination and breaches of flexible working legislation. She later resigned. The employment tribunal rejected Ms Smith’s claims. The tribunal accepted that requiring full-time working places women at a particular disadvantage compared with men because women are more likely to be sole parents than men.
The tribunal concluded that, in any event, the employer’s stance was justified. The employer’s legitimate aim is to “ensure that its partners and clients receive high-quality, efficient secretarial support throughout the week, without problematic handovers”.
If you require any assistance with flexible working requests, or requests after returning from maternity please contact me.
Equal pay – ASDA
An employment tribunal has ruled that the women, who mainly work at check-outs or stacking shelves, can compare themselves to higher paid men who work at warehouses.
This case highlights how comparator jobs aren’t obvious.
Please contact me if you have any equal pay issues or queries.
£180,000 compensation won by School Teacher
The Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled his employer discriminated against him on the grounds of his disability during his dismissal for a disciplinary offence. Philip Grosset was sacked for gross misconduct after showing an 18-certificate horror film Halloween to 16-year-old students.
Grosset described his actions as a “poor choice” made at a time of “extreme stress and ill-health”, which did not deserve more than a verbal warning at most. Instead, he was sacked – and the tribunal accepted his argument that the school’s failure to take account of his disability before and during the process amounted to discrimination.
This case shows how giving out ‘unreasonable’ sanctions following a disciplinary process can backfire.
Please contact me prior to a disciplinary hearing for guidance.
Gender Pay reporting regulations finalised
This will affect businesses with over 250 employees. For further information please contact me.
Any questions regarding January’s update, please contact us on 07929 506 143 or echrltd@aol.co.uk