In Ms J Keating v WH Smith Retail Holdings Ltd Jacqueline Keating has 2 children and is a single parent. Her terms and conditions included, under the normal working hours section, a provision that she was to work 20 hours per week, flexible to the needs of the business. It was also stated that she could be asked to work an extra 8 hours per week where the trading patterns require more staff. Further, that she may be required to work Saturdays, Sundays or Public/Bank Holidays.
Mr Cruickshank, the manager, identified a business need to introduce a Saturday rota for the weekday staff. The proposal was for the weekday staff to work 1 Saturday in 4. This was because of the operational and budget restraints in the Store caused by falling sales revenue and hence a consequential squeeze on the Store’s budget.
Ms Keating asked not to work at weekends because she did not have any childcare. The hearing in Croydon, south London, was told on numerous occasions that this roster was a ‘massive issue’ for the single mother, who had no family or social network to help her out. But her ‘frustrated’ boss told her she had to work a four hour shift on a Saturday and find her own replacement if she could not do it, an employment tribunal was told. The tribunal was told she tried to talk to her boss multiple times about this, even sending him a text which was ignored.
The following month, Ms Keating was forced to ask for both WHSmith and her boss to sign off on letting her daughter accompany her to work – a move the panel found to be an indication of her ‘obvious and significant childcare issues’.
The tribunal found this should have been a ‘red flag’ to managers but her boss ‘neglected his responsibility’ and did not explore whether any staff could cover for her. Employment Judge Omar Khalil concluded: ‘It appeared… that there was either casualness and/or a lack of HR support for Mr Cruikshank, alternatively inadequacy of diversity training.
‘Mr Cruikshank’s disinterest was rooted in his desire for Ms Keating to sort out swaps with her colleagues or simply to find a child care solution herself.
‘This was a surprising neglect of his responsibility.’
The panel awarded Ms Keating £25,558.55 in compensation.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
