Mrs S Parker v David Wood Baking Ltd David Wood Food Ltd — 2019

Mrs S Parker had worked part-time after maternity leave, including a temporary arrangement to work three days a week until September 2018. The tribunal found that in 2018 the respondent restructured its Flint site work, centralised ordering functions to Bolton, and introduced new administrative duties at Flint, including filing and record-keeping tasks linked to record compliance for a national retailer contract. It accepted that the sales-processing role had become a full-time function and that the respondent's turnover at Flint had increased from about GBP 12 million to GBP 25 million a year.

The tribunal dismissed the indirect sex discrimination, part-time worker, and flexible working detriment claims. It accepted that women who are primary carers can be disadvantaged by part-time working arrangements, but found the respondent had a legitimate aim in meeting contractual obligations and streamlining administration, and that the requirement for sales processing to be covered for at least 30 hours a week was proportionate. It also found that the respondent's decision about the claimant's duties was not on the ground of her section 80F flexible working request.

The unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The tribunal accepted that Mr Astley made the comment that if the claimant was incapable of doing her job she should put in her notice, found that Ms Darlington changed her duties and reporting line without warning and threatened discipline, and found that Mr Wood dealt with the grievance in an unfair manner by calling an unannounced meeting, not allowing preparation, not permitting an accompanied meeting, and not offering an appeal. Taken together, those matters amounted to a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, and the claimant did not affirm the contract. The tribunal also found no potentially fair reason had been pleaded or proved.

The breach of contract claim was upheld in relation to notice pay. The tribunal said the respondent had failed to pay the balance of the claimant's contractual notice, but the extracted reasons do not set out a quantified award. The judgment does not contain a remedy calculation for the successful claims in the material provided.