Emma Holt awarded £18,000 in unfair dismissal case following changes to flexible working arrangements
An employment tribunal has ruled that a beauty therapist was unfairly dismissed and suffered sex discrimination after she was made redundant following a row over childcare arrangements.
Emma Holt, who worked at the Carlisle branch of Bannatyne Fitness for almost 10 years, had a flexible working agreement with her employers to only work Monday to Friday to accommodate her son and childcare needs. She would only work weekends in exceptional circumstances – to cover a sick colleague, for example – because she was unable to arrange childcare cover.
However, in early 2016, senior managers at the fitness centre insisted Holt work weekends. Holt claimed the proposed rota would not bring any additional benefits to the company, and persisted in her refusal to work weekend shifts. She looked into paid childcare but there were no weekend facilities open in her area.
Holt raised a formal grievance, but a senior manager did not conduct “any meaningful investigation” into Holt’s complaints, the tribunal heard. She was later made redundant.
Holt told her employer: “My personal life doesn't allow me to work weekends. I have always given 150 per cent in this company and I have always run the spa like it is my own. Whatever days I am in they get my full attention and I have put in extra time when needed in the past.
“I am not trying to be difficult with this. I fully understand where the business is coming from. I have no objections to working weekends but I just can't get childcare that my son will go to.
“Enforcing a change to my work pattern is breaching my flexible work agreement. I do feel this is unfair on the ground that I have worked continually for the company and with very little absence over the 10 years for either myself or my child.”
The tribunal ruled that Holt was unfairly dismissed and suffered sex discrimination. She was awarded £18,399, which included £10,399 for unfair dismissal and £8,000 for injury to her feelings.
The tribunal accepted Holt suffered “anger, distress and affront” as a result of the company's “indirect discrimination”, but rejected a claim that she was victimised by her employer.
The firm has admitted unfair dismissal, but rejected charges of sex discrimination.