News Article

This case highlights the importance to employers to be aware of any discrimination issues when dealing with flexible working requests. 

---

PC Mather was a single mum working for Greater Manchester Police since 1991. Between 2008 and 2011 she reduced her hours to term time working only. However when she made another term time working application in 2012, her request was rejected on the grounds that she was required to cover the anti-social behaviour after school and to work an additional nine “critical” days outside of term time. The Police Force stated that they had rejected her request as her absence would not fulfil the following objectives; training, updates before the start of the new school year, deskilling and operational resilience. 

The Employment Tribunal held that the Police Force had indeed indirectly discriminated against the Claimant. The ET while accepting that operational resilience was a legitimate aim, rejected the other three objectives given by the Force as their reason for rejecting the flexible working request. The Tribunal also found that the Force was unable to justify how the nine “critical” days that the employee was required to work was identified. Finally the Tribunal also held that the disadvantage to the employee outweighed the advantage to Greater Manchester Police and was a disproportionate way for achieving the Police Force’s aim. 

Employers must ensure they are clear about their reasons for refusing flexible working requests and be aware of situations where they may be putting the employee at a particular disadvantage. 

For any further advice or information please contact the team here at SFB Consulting. Our offices are based in Bishop’s Stortford and London, but we offer our services and consultancy UK wide. 

T:01279 874 676 

E:info@sfb-consulting.com