Ms C McAneny v Gatwick Airport Limited — 2019

Ms McAneny returned from maternity leave and, after an agreed part-time arrangement was in place, sought to work weekends only from 6pm on Friday to 6pm on Sunday. Gatwick Airport Limited rejected that request on the ground that it could not provide the necessary management supervision and could not create a bespoke roster; the appeal was also rejected, and the claimant resigned. The tribunal identified the relevant PCPs as a requirement to work within existing shift patterns and a requirement to work weekdays.

The indirect sex discrimination claim failed because the tribunal was not satisfied that the PCPs put female security officers at a particular disadvantage compared with male security officers. It found there was no evidence of group disadvantage in the respondent’s workforce or roster pool, noting that only 11 weekend-working requests had been made in 15 years, 7 by women, but there was no evidence explaining whether those requests were for childcare or other reasons. The tribunal accepted that the respondent’s roster-suite, with at least four working patterns, job shares and shift swapping, provided flexibility, and it rejected the invitation to infer group disadvantage from general assumptions about childcare responsibilities.

The tribunal also considered justification and accepted the respondent’s stated aims of ensuring staff availability, ensuring sufficient work on each shift pattern, and ensuring adequate supervision. It accepted evidence that the airport security operation was highly regulated, ran 24/7, had varying peak demands across the year, and required regular supervision and alignment between staff and line managers. The tribunal found it administratively and operationally unmanageable to create a weekend-only roster for the claimant, and it rejected the proposed alternatives of ad hoc supervision notes and a bespoke arrangement limited to the claimant.

The constructive dismissal claim failed because it depended on the discrimination allegation, which was rejected. In any event, the tribunal found that the respondent did not act in a manner calculated or likely to destroy trust and confidence: it tried to reach a resolution, did not want the claimant to leave, and asked her to reconsider after she resigned. The claim was therefore dismissed in full and no monetary award was made.