Claimant v Blackwood Homes and Care

The tribunal found the respondent breached the implied term of trust and confidence through a series of actions: systematically excluding the claimant from rota discussions, misusing the flexible working request process to enforce a rota change the claimant could not work due to childcare responsibilities, refusing her FWR on unjustified grounds including pregnancy-related absence, sending a hostile email ('I hate her'), and treating her less favourably than colleagues. These breaches, culminating in the refusal of her grievance, entitled her to resign. The dismissal was substantively unfair as it was not for conduct or some other substantial reason.

The tribunal found the respondent refused the claimant's flexible working request principally because of her level of absence, which was higher than colleagues due to pregnancy-related illness (hyperemesis and hospitalisation). The decision letter cited 'additional burden of costs' for covering absences on Mondays and Fridays, the claimant's working days. The refusal was communicated on 12 September 2022 during her maternity leave (the protected period). This constituted unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy-related illness under section 18 EA 2010.

The tribunal found the respondent applied a PCP requiring the claimant to work a new rota including weekends. Taking judicial notice of childcare disparity between men and women, the tribunal found this PCP placed women at a particular disadvantage and put the claimant at that disadvantage due to her childcare responsibilities for two young children. The PCP was not justified: the legitimate aims cited (cost control, meeting customer demands) were already satisfied by the status quo (fixed days), there were no additional costs for covering the claimant's shifts, and colleagues had not refused to cover or threatened resignation.