Members: Mrs L M Millar Mr A McMillan Mrs Ann Downie v Represented by: Ms N Braganza Counsel Coherent Scotland Ltd — 2017

The claimant had worked for the respondent as a part-time HR Manager since 26 November 2007, on 22.5 hours a week because of childcare responsibilities. In March 2016 she was told, without advance notice, that she would be required to move to full-time hours. She said she could not do that, proposed a job share or other reduced-hours arrangements, and later offered to increase her hours to 30 a week over five days. The tribunal found that these proposals were not properly considered. The separate Part Time Workers Regulations complaint was later withdrawn and dismissed on 2 December 2016.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal rejected redundancy. It found there was an increasing HR workload, not a diminution in the need for HR work, and that the claimant’s role would have remained the same work of HR support, just for longer hours. Although the respondent said it needed a full-time HR Manager for continuity and strategic support, the tribunal found there was no evidence of a genuine reorganisation and no proper explanation for why one person had to do the work. Applying section 98 ERA 1996, it held that the respondent did not seriously consider the claimant’s alternatives, including job share and trial periods, and that dismissal was unfair.

On indirect sex discrimination, the respondent accepted that the requirement to work full-time was a provision, criterion or practice, that it put women at a particular disadvantage, and that the claimant was personally disadvantaged by it. The tribunal found that part-time work is predominantly carried out by women and is associated with childcare responsibilities, so the full-time requirement placed women at a particular disadvantage. It rejected justification under section 19 EqA 2010, finding that the respondent had not shown that insisting on a full-time, single-person arrangement was a proportionate means of achieving its stated business aims, and that it had not properly engaged with the claimant’s job-share and other less discriminatory proposals.

As remedy, the tribunal ordered reinstatement to the HR Manager role to take effect no later than 1 May 2017 and directed that the claimant be treated as if she had not been dismissed. It awarded arrears of pay of £22,331 if reinstatement occurred on that date, with a further weekly amount until reinstatement if later, and ordered restoration to the pension scheme with employer contributions. For discrimination it awarded £14,000 for injury to feelings plus £966.57 interest, and it also ordered reimbursement of £1,200 tribunal fees.