Mrs A Perkins v Marston (Holdings) Limited — 2024

Mrs A Perkins was employed as Head of Enforcement - Local Taxation at Helmshore. Following a restructure in 2021, the respondent moved toward an Enforcement Services Centre model and later required Grade 3 managers to travel significant distances. The claimant repeatedly said she could travel reasonable distances but not long journeys that would prevent her collecting her two young children from childcare, and she was eventually given notice of redundancy after consultation failed to resolve the dispute.

On indirect sex discrimination, the tribunal held that the requirement to travel significant distances was a provision, criterion or practice applied to Grade 3 managers. It took judicial notice, relying on Dobson, that women are primary carers of small children and found that women in that position would be particularly disadvantaged by a travel requirement that involved early departures and late returns. The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence about her childcare constraints and found that she, as the only woman in the Grade 3 management role, was individually disadvantaged.

The tribunal rejected the respondent's justification case. It did not accept that the claimant had caused staff morale problems, and it found that the asserted business needs and future-acquisition concerns were not supported by evidence. It concluded that the legitimate aims identified by the respondent could have been achieved by less restrictive means, including limited travel or virtual attendance, and therefore the indirect sex discrimination claim succeeded.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that the claimant's job title changed but her work did not cease or diminish within the meaning of s.139 ERA 1996. It held that the respondent was proposing to move more work to Helmshore and that the need for the claimant's role continued in a newly titled form. The tribunal found that the real reason for dismissal was that the claimant would not travel significant distances, that the respondent had not shown a fair reason under s.98(2) ERA 1996, and that the dismissal was unfair. The supplied judgment text does not record any monetary remedy.