P McColl and V P Alexander Mr Alexander MacFarlane v Represented by: Ms L Neil - Solicitor The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s — 2022

The claimant presented disability discrimination and flexible working claims. The respondent accepted that he was a disabled person within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, with type 2 diabetes. At the hearing, the claimant withdrew the disability discrimination allegations because they depended on being required to work in the office, and he had not in fact been required to do so.

The remaining claim was the section 80F flexible working request. The claimant applied on 2 June 2021 to become a designated homeworker. Mr Graham met him on 16 June 2021, took notes, and completed the remote and mobile working form. The request was then considered by Mr Gibson, who refused it by letter dated 29 September 2021. An appeal was rejected on 8 November 2021. The tribunal referred to section 80F and 80G of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Flexible Working Regulations 2014, and the ACAS Code of Practice on handling requests to work flexibly.

By majority, the tribunal found the claim well founded and held that the respondent had not dealt with the application in a reasonable manner. The majority considered that Mr Gibson had not sufficiently balanced the claimant's health and caring responsibilities against the respondent's business case, had placed weight on the respondent's office-based strategy and planned structural changes, and had treated the delay in concluding the process as unreasonable. Employment Judge L Wiseman dissented and would have dismissed the claim.

The tribunal ordered compensation of £590.04, said to be two weeks' net pay of £295.02. The award was treated as just and equitable because the claimant had continued to work from home and had not been required to return to the office, and because he had sought only a permanent arrangement under which he would work entirely from home.