Members: P McColl S Larkin M L Webster v Marks and Spencer plc — 2022

The claimant was a team manager at the respondent's Paisley store. When the Paisley store was being replaced by a new food-only renewal store, the claimant was told she would move to the Argyle Street store. The tribunal found the respondent used managers' mobility clauses to resource stores regionally and that the claimant was moved because she had not been identified as future talent and there was a food role at Argyle Street, not because of her part-time status.

The tribunal accepted some criticism of the respondent's handling of the situation. It found that the claimant's wider experience had not been checked, the future talent process was not transparent, and Kirk Russell's references to childcare and part-time hours gave the claimant an understandable impression that those matters were factors. However, it found the respondent acted within the contract, the delay in arranging the grievance meeting was not a last straw, and the circumstances did not amount to a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.

For the indirect sex discrimination claim, the tribunal found the practice of relocating managers without considering their working hours and circumstances was applied to managers with mobility clauses, but the claimant had not proved facts from which an inference of discrimination could be drawn. It also found no evidence that the practice placed women at a particular disadvantage compared with men. All claims were dismissed and no compensation was awarded.