Claimant v Ministry of Defence Police

The tribunal found that requiring the claimant to work the demanding 'Vulcan' shift pattern (8 consecutive 12-hour shifts) put her at a substantial disadvantage due to her May-Thurner Syndrome, which caused pain and swelling after prolonged standing. The respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments by refusing her flexible working request for 3x12 hour shifts per week, despite medical evidence that this would allow her to manage her condition and continue working. The tribunal concluded it would have been reasonable to adjust her pattern to 36 hours over three days, and the respondent took an overly narrow approach without adequately exploring alternatives or costs.

The claimant alleged the respondent dealt with her flexible working application unreasonably under s.80G Employment Rights Act 1996, specifically citing Inspector Reid's involvement despite an outstanding grievance against him. The tribunal found that although there were some concerns about the process and clearer delineation of roles might have been better, the involvement of Inspector Reid alone was not sufficient to render the handling unreasonable. The claimant was given considerable input and the request was considered, albeit ultimately refused.

The tribunal found the claimant had not made a protected act under s.27 of the Equality Act. Her grievance complained about not getting time off with her husband and feeling punished for being married, but the tribunal concluded objectively this was a staffing issue rather than discrimination, as the same issue would arise whether married or not. Even if there had been a protected act, there was insufficient evidence that Inspector Reid caused a detriment (the refusal of the flexible working application), as the decision was effectively made by Superintendent Stewart.