Case 4106434/2019 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4106434/2019 (V) Hearing by Cloud Video Platform (CVP) on and April; and Deliberation on April 2021 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Tribunal Member: N Elliot Tribunal Member : R Henderson Mr Basil Hamza
The claimant worked for HM Revenue & Customs on a CSI contract involving late and weekend cover. After his wife's change of workplace affected childcare arrangements, he applied for an Alternative Work Pattern reducing his weekly hours and avoiding work after 3.30pm, while offering weekend work. The respondent did not grant the application as submitted and sought some late-shift cover, after which the claimant resigned.
On the direct sex discrimination claim, the tribunal found that the relevant difference between the claimant and his female comparator, Ms Jeffrey, was not sex but Ms Jeffrey's willingness and ability to work a Friday late shift. The tribunal accepted that late shifts, particularly Friday evenings, were important to the respondent's business need and found that a hypothetical female comparator making the same application as the claimant would also have been refused.
On the indirect sex discrimination claim, the tribunal found that the respondent did not apply a PCP requiring staff, or male staff, to work full-time. It noted that Ms Jeffrey, Mr Alexander and potentially the claimant could work part-time if an acceptable pattern including late cover was agreed. The tribunal also found that the claimant had not shown a disadvantage because of sex, and dismissed all claims.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination claim. The tribunal found the claimant was not treated less favourably because of sex when his Alternative Work Pattern application was not granted as submitted. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Sex discrimination | Indirect sex discrimination claim. The pleaded PCP concerned requiring male employees to work a full-time shift pattern and not giving adequate or reasonable consideration to part-time working requests for men; the tribunal found the PCP was not applied and no sex-related disadvantage was established. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
The 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.
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.