Working Mum on Reduced Work Hours Faces Sex Discrimination and a Dismissal After Being Accused of ‘Skiving’

In Mrs H Grant v Buffery & Co. Ltd, a former apprentice successfully claimed sex discrimination after the employment tribunal found her dismissal was driven by her reduced work hours and childcare responsibilities. The tribunal concluded that a male comparator wouldn’t have faced similar treatment due to the employer’s belief that women shoulder the majority of childcare duties.

Read on to uncover exactly what happened and what the tribunal said. We will discuss whether reducing hours at work due to childcare is acceptable and how to handle employment rights breaches.

Should you have any questions or want assistance with your own employment tribunal claim, please contact Redmans Solicitors now. As sector specialists, we can answer your queries and provide expert advice.

To begin, simply:

The Facts in Mrs H Grant v Buffery & Co. Ltd

Background: Claimant Requests Reduced Work Hours

Mrs H Grant (“The Claimant”) successfully interviewed for an apprenticeship at Buffery & Co. Ltd (“The Respondent”) on 26 April 2023. The next day, she was offered the job which would involve working 9 am to 5:30 pm daily and finishing early on Friday.

Before the claimant’s first day of work, she made a flexible working request for reduced work hours. This was so she could balance her work and childcare commitments. Once agreed upon on 5 May, her contracted hours of work were updated to 9 am until 4:30 pm.

Then, when the claimant’s first day eventually arrived on 15 June, she sought a dedicated space for pumping breast milk. Since she’d never requested this previously, it came as a slight surprise to the respondent. Nevertheless, they were happy to oblige and made the accommodation.

However, on 16 June, the claimant’s line manager, Ms Katie Thompson, told her it would be challenging for an individual with children to effectively work for the respondent. Six days later, she accused the claimant of “skiving” for having Fridays off, even though the employer implemented this change, and remarked, “You might as well not bother working at all.”

Compressed Hours Altered with New Friday Work Expectations

The change to the claimant’s Fridays came shortly after she started working when she was informed she was no longer required to attend the office that day. Allegedly, the respondent was aware of the claimant’s long commute and childcare responsibilities and implemented this change on 23 June.

According to the respondent, the claimant was still expected to train or complete work on Fridays despite not attending the office. However, the tribunal accepted the claimant’s version of events, where she explained that while she was expected to complete training once her studies began, this point hadn’t yet been reached.

Claimant Dismissed Following “Unsuccessful Probation”

On 20 July, a review meeting took place, during which the respondent assessed the claimant’s ability to manage her work and childcare commitments. No issues were raised regarding poor productivity, competency, or attitude at the time.

Despite this, the respondent emailed the claimant the following day to inform her of her dismissal. The email titled “Unsuccessful Probation” asserted the respondent’s view that she would “struggle to complete the training required to pass the exams”.

The claimant responded the same day, stating, “I must admit, I was a little shocked to receive your email [since] nothing was highlighted in the progress review meeting only yesterday.” She then asserted she could juggle work and family commitments and that dismissing her over this was “frankly illegal”.

Following the respondent’s abrupt decision, the claimant initiated employment tribunal proceedings. Once ACAS early conciliation had concluded, she brought direct sex discrimination claims on 10 October.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Reduced Work Hours Part of Larger Sexist Views

Following proceedings, the employment tribunal assessed the claimant’s claim of direct sex discrimination. Three incidents were given particular attention: the comments about it being difficult for parents to work for the respondent, the remark that the claimant was “skiving”, and the dismissal.

With each incident, the tribunal held the claimant was subject to less favourable treatment because of her sex and suffered a detriment. They explained how issues arose because of her reduced work hours and childcare commitments and that a male comparator wouldn’t be treated the same way because the respondent had an underlying belief that women still bear the majority of childcare responsibilities.

Consequently, the tribunal ruled in the claimant’s favour and allowed her direct sex discrimination claim to succeed. Following this ruling, a remedy hearing will occur on 7 March 2025 to determine her compensation.

Can I Reduce My Hours?

Reducing hours at work due to childcare or any other personal circumstances is not uncommon. Regularly, a working parent will make a flexible working request for compressed hours to fit work around family commitments.

In the UK, requesting flexible working is now a day-one right for employees. While such requests could include accommodations like remote setups or adjusted start and finish times, they can also involve reduced working hours. And while employers aren’t legally obligated to accept such requests, they must have a justifiable reason for denying them.

But that’s not all. If someone is legally disabled, they’re entitled to reasonable adjustments, which may include having their hours reduced at work. Should the employer fail to make the necessary adjustments, they could face legal action and be ordered to pay compensation. With this in mind, it’s in their interest to comply.

Denied Reduced Work Hours? Here’s What You Can Do! 

Unfortunately, not all employers will adhere to their legal obligations. That said, if an individual has requested reduced working hours and their employer unlawfully denies this, several steps can be taken to rectify the matter.

Firstly, the individual could pursue internal remedies. This may involve having an informal chat with one’s manager or raising a formal grievance. If the issue can be resolved at this point, then both parties can avoid the high costs and stress associated with legal action.

However, if an internal resolution cannot be found, the individual may need to consider an external remedy. ACAS early conciliation may provide the answer, but if it doesn’t, it might be time to initiate tribunal proceedings. If the individual succeeds with their claim, they could be awarded compensation.

If you’ve had your reduced work hours request denied or faced a similar detriment to Mrs Grant, please reach out. Redmans Solicitors are employment law specialists, and after a quick chat, we can provide expert advice.

To learn more about the help we provide, please: