Case 3304544/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Morsing v Howden Joinery Group plc — 2024
- Case reference
- 3304544/2024
- Decision date
- 18 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Ms A Buck, Ms S Laurence-Doig
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Morsing
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant requested to continue working two days per week in the office after the respondent required employees to attend the office three days per week. His reasons included tiredness from an additional commute, additional commuting cost, and his view that the team he worked most closely with was not based at the same office location.
The tribunal found that the respondent considered the request and appeal in a reasonable manner. It accepted that Jack Norris and Martin Gillon genuinely concluded that granting the request would have a detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand and a detrimental impact on quality, based on their view of the claimant's role and the respondent's operations.
The tribunal did not find that the respondent simply applied a diktat from above or failed to consider the claimant's circumstances. It concluded that the evidence did not show non-compliance with section 80G(1) or that the rejection decision was based on incorrect facts.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flexible working | The tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaint under section 80H Employment Rights Act 1996, finding it was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 80F Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 80G(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 80H Employment Rights Act 1996
- ACAS Code
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.