Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Case lawEquality, diversity and inclusion

Craddock v Cornwall County Council and Governing Body of Indian Queens CP School and Nursery

by Personnel Today 24 Jan 2006
by Personnel Today 24 Jan 2006

Job share – a question of balance

Craddock v Cornwall County Council and Governing Body of Indian Queens CP School and Nursery, Employment Appeal Tribunal, 19 December 2005

Facts

Following maternity leave, Craddock, a primary school teacher, was interested in reducing her hours. She raised the question of part-time working with the school and ultimately put forward a proposal in respect of a job-share arrangement. The school raised a number of concerns, including the possible disruption to the school’s teaching system and the impact on the quality of education.

The school rejected Craddock’s request and her subsequent internal appeal. She brought a tribunal complaint alleging unfair constructive dismissal and sex discrimination.

Decisions

At tribunal, the school argued that the particular circumstances of the school could not accommodate Craddock’s request and the arrangements for handover between the job sharers were inadequate – there would be repetition of communication and problems with liaison and joint planning. While the tribunal considered that these problems were not insurmountable, the reasons advanced by the school were found to be ‘cogent’ reasons. The tribunal dismissed Craddock’s claims. She appealed, arguing that the tribunal had reached its decision on very selective evidence.

Appeal

The EAT allowed Craddock’s appeal. The tribunal had failed to carry out any balancing act between the discriminatory effect of the school’s action and the justification for that action, an approach which was fundamental to the claim. There was no ‘audit trail’ identifying that this balancing exercise had taken place.

The EAT commented that it was a glimpse of the obvious to say that employing part-time employees could be inconvenient in that it required an employer to make adjustments. Yet the failure to make such adjustments to allow for part-time posts denied society the services of a wider pool of potential employees. The claims will be reheard by a different tribunal.

Comment

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Since April 2003, employees with young (or disabled) children have had a formal right to request flexible working and to have such requests considered seriously by their employer. In the last year, however, this issue seems to have become particularly high profile, with a number of recent decisions demonstrating a willingness by the courts to make judgments about the feasibility of flexible working, even in specialised jobs, such as pilots.

Employers need to take particular care therefore that requests are given genuine consideration and that an appropriate audit trail is available in support of the decision taken.

Personnel Today

Personnel Today articles are written by an expert team of award-winning journalists who have been covering HR and L&D for many years. Some of our content is attributed to "Personnel Today" for a number of reasons, including: when numerous authors are associated with writing or editing a piece; or when the author is unknown (particularly for older articles).

previous post
Public sector pensions cost UK households £250 a year
next post
Pensions changes prompt strikes by a million workers

You may also like

BBC Breakfast bullying and misconduct allegations under investigation

20 Jun 2025

Finance professionals expect less emphasis on ESG and...

18 Jun 2025

Lack of role models a ‘barrier’ for people...

17 Jun 2025

Pride 2025: why corporate allyship still matters

16 Jun 2025

HR is second ‘most sexist profession’ survey suggests

13 Jun 2025

Racism claims have tripled and ‘Equality Act is...

12 Jun 2025

School’s bid to appeal Kristie Higgs ruling refused...

11 Jun 2025

Court rejects Liberty’s legal challenge against EHRC consultation

9 Jun 2025

US Supreme Court lowers burden of proof for...

6 Jun 2025

Liberty to challenge EHRC consultation in High Court

3 Jun 2025

  • Empowering working parents and productivity during the summer holidays SPONSORED | Businesses play a...Read more
  • AI is here. Your workforce should be ready. SPONSORED | From content creation...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+