Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • 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
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • 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
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Equality, diversity and inclusionCase law

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

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.

Avatar
Personnel Today

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

Diversity and inclusion: where does the buck stop?

4 Jul 2022

One in five workplaces lack LGBT support policies

30 Jun 2022

Christian doctor loses transgender pronoun case, but beliefs...

29 Jun 2022

Attracting diverse young talent to the ‘secret’ world...

28 Jun 2022

Gender pay gap ‘won’t close until 2151’

27 Jun 2022

Don’t be gloomy over social mobility in the...

24 Jun 2022

Long Covid: what tribunal’s disability ruling means for...

23 Jun 2022

Bias stopping STEM professionals returning after career break

23 Jun 2022

Black, Asian and LGBTQ+ workers ‘overlooked’ at work

20 Jun 2022

UK in urgent need of female tradespeople finds...

17 Jun 2022
  • NSPCC revamps its learning strategy with child wellbeing at its heart PROMOTED | The NSPCC’s mission is to prevent abuse and neglect...Read more
  • Diversity versus inclusion: Why the difference matters PROMOTED | It’s possible for an environment to be diverse, but not inclusive...Read more
  • Five steps for organisations across the globe to become more skills-driven PROMOTED | The shift in the world of work has been felt across the globe...Read more
  • The future of workforce development PROMOTED | Northumbria University and partners share insight...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 2022

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2022 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • 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
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+