Claimant v The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police

The tribunal found that although the respondent subjected the claimant to detriments (refusing to consider her shift proposal and denying appeal), these were not on the ground that she was a part-time worker. The reason was her refusal to complete the FW1 form and confusing advice from Employee Relations, not her part-time status. Applying the McMenemy test via Augustine, part-time status must be the sole reason, which it was not.

The tribunal found the claimant was subjected to detriments (refusal to consider shift pattern, denial of appeal, notification of reversion to full-time, move to Team 4), but her emails of 4 and 7 November 2023 did not constitute protected acts under Regulation 7(3) PTWR as they did not assert rights under the PTWR. Further, DCI Dawson's actions were caused by the claimant's refusal to complete the FW1 and confusing ER advice, not by any assertion of PTWR rights.

The tribunal found that the PCP (reviewing and implementing a new shift pattern) did not put women at a particular disadvantage compared to men. The new South Yorkshire shift pattern had fewer weekends (2 in 4 vs 2 in 3) and fewer late shifts, likely benefiting those with childcare responsibilities. The EHR assessment concluded it may benefit women and flexible workers. Even if there was disadvantage, the tribunal found the PCP was justified as a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of providing an effective safeguarding unit following the HMICFRS PEEL inspection.