Mrs J Summers v B.I.M.S Ltd — 2019

Mrs J Summers made a formal flexible working request on 3 May 2018 seeking to reduce her hours from 39 to 30 per week, spread Monday to Thursday. The tribunal accepted that she was a qualifying employee and that, in the context of her earlier requests, her application adequately explained the effect she thought the change would have on the respondent and how that might be managed. The respondent’s written refusal was dated 1 June 2018, but the tribunal accepted that the claimant did not receive it and therefore had not been notified of the decision within the decision period.

The tribunal held that the refusal was based on incorrect facts. The respondent had treated the request as if it would require lone working Monday to Thursday and on Friday, but the claimant’s revised proposal meant there was only a potential lone-working issue for one hour on a Friday. The tribunal also found that the respondent had not properly taken into account that DD would have been willing to lone work for that hour, that lone working already occurred at times, and that there was no written policy prohibiting it. The tribunal further found that the stated grounds of inability to recruit additional staff, burden of additional costs, and detrimental effect on customer demand, quality and performance were based on incorrect facts.

The tribunal also found that the respondent had not dealt with the application in a reasonable manner. It did not hold a meeting or telephone discussion with the claimant, did not offer accompaniment, did not check that the refusal letter had been received, and did not offer an appeal. Applying the Acas Code of Practice, the tribunal considered these were material procedural failures because a discussion could have exposed the factual errors and might have led to a different outcome.

The claim was therefore well founded and the tribunal awarded compensation of 6 weeks' pay, amounting to £1,832.22. The tribunal noted the statutory maximum was 8 weeks' pay and took into account the respondent's size and limited resources, the fact that it had attempted to respond, the claimant's lack of financial loss after leaving, and the stress caused by the handling of the request.