Nicola Downes v The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police — 2025

The tribunal found that the respondent carried out a substantial safeguarding review following HMICFRS PEEL inspection recommendations and consulted on moving from a three-week to a four-week shift pattern. It rejected the claimant's case that the respondent failed to consult with her or required her to reapply to become part-time. The tribunal found that requiring completion of form FW1 was a reasonable mechanism for reviewing existing part-time and flexible arrangements during organisational change, not a requirement to apply afresh for part-time status.

On the Regulation 5 PTWR complaint, the tribunal found that refusing to consider the claimant's shift proposal without an FW1 and telling her she would have no appeal were detriments and less favourable treatment compared with full-time comparators. However, it found the reason for that treatment was the claimant's refusal to complete the FW1 and confusing advice given by employee relations, not the fact that she was a part-time worker. The tribunal therefore dismissed the Regulation 5 claim.

On the Regulation 7 PTWR complaint, the tribunal found detriments in the refusal to consider the claimant's proposed pattern, the denial of an appeal, the notification that she would revert to full-time working, and the move to Team Four. It nevertheless held that the claimant's emails of 4 and 7 November 2023 did not amount to acts protected by Regulation 7(3), and that the detriments were not caused by any assertion of PTWR rights. The indirect sex discrimination claim also failed because the tribunal was not satisfied the shift-change PCP placed women at a particular disadvantage compared with men; it further held that, even if there were such disadvantage, the PCP was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of providing a more effective safeguarding unit.