Mrs J Rendell v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited — 2023

The claimant was dismissed after refusing to agree to changed working hours arising from the respondent's review of staffing patterns at its Whitstable store. The tribunal found that the respondent's reason was a business need to reorganise working hours to better match customer shopping habits, and that this was capable of amounting to some other substantial reason for dismissal.

The tribunal accepted that the process had flaws. It found that the respondent should have done more to assist the claimant's participation in consultation, should have communicated the right of appeal in the dismissal letter, and should have been more consistent in presenting dismissal as a possible rather than automatic consequence. However, it also found that the claimant understood the proposal, had opportunities to raise questions and alternatives, and that her proposed job-share arrangement did not meet the respondent's stated staffing objective.

Looking at the process overall, including the appeal, the tribunal concluded that the respondent had engaged in meaningful consultation and had considered the claimant's points. It held that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses open to the respondent, and the unfair dismissal claim failed.