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
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • Maternity & Paternity
    • 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
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • Maternity & Paternity
    • 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+

Employment lawHR practiceCase lawEmployment tribunalsJob sharing

Hardys and Hansons Plc v Lax

by Personnel Today 13 Sep 2005
by Personnel Today 13 Sep 2005

Hardys and Hansons Plc v Lax,
Court of Appeal, 7 July 2005

The Court of Appeal confirmed in this case that an employer’s refusal to permit the job-share of a full-time role was unlawful sex discrimination.

This can be justifiable in some circumstances, even if it has a disproportionate detrimental effect on individuals of a particular sex. This case reiterates what a tribunal will consider when deciding whether an employer’s potentially discriminatory decision (in this case, to reject a request for job-sharing) can be ‘objectively justified’ under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

The facts

Lax, a retail recruitment manager for a brewery company, requested to be allowed to work part-time/job-share on her return from maternity leave, but her request was rejected.

During her leave, a reorganisation of roles had taken place at the company, and some of Lax’s previous responsibilities were absorbed into a new, combined role.

Since she had confirmed that she was unable to return to a full-time position, Lax was given notice of dismissal on the grounds of the redundancy of her former role. The new position was then filled by a full-time employee.

The complaint
Lax complained, among other things, that she had been discriminated against on the grounds of her sex.

The company accepted that a refusal to consider a job-share acted to the detriment of Lax, and that childcare responsibilities were such that the refusal would be to the detriment of a larger proportion of women than men.

It believed its decision was justifiable due to the nature of the role, which involved functions incapable of being split between two people.

But the tribunal disagreed. It found that, although the newly-created role could not be undertaken part-time, it could feasibly have been carried out by two job-sharers or two part-timers.

The company’s failure to consider this option was ruled unreasonable, and Lax succeeded at tribunal. She was awarded £60,000.

The decision on appeal

Appeals to the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal were dismissed.

The company argued that the test of ‘objective justification’ under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 should permit an employer a ‘margin of discretion’ or a range of reasonable responses in deciding whether to permit a job-share (ie room for manoeuvre within which the tribunal may disagree with the employer’s assessment, but cannot hold the employer’s assessment to be unlawful).

The court rejected this argument, saying there was no room for a ‘band of reasonable responses’ test, similar to that applied in unfair dismissal cases.

It repeated the accepted test that, when deciding whether an employer’s decision is ‘objectively justified’ and therefore not unlawful, it is the tribunal’s job to weigh up the real needs of the business against the discriminatory effect of the employer’s proposal.

Comment

This case serves as a reminder that a tribunal’s appraisal of whether a potentially discriminatory practice can be justifiable involves a detailed analysis of working practices and business considerations.

The court said this should include work systems, the practical problems which may or may not arise from job-sharing in a particular business, and the economic impact in a competitive world, which the restrictions may impose on the employer’s freedom of action.


Avatar
Personnel Today

previous post
Adopt new strategies on talent or get left behind
next post
Unions urge reform of strike laws

You may also like

Aspers casino cashier excluded by colleagues wins £75k...

23 May 2022

One in five employers planning ‘no jab no...

19 May 2022

BNP Paribas banker accused of ’emotional terrorism’ wins...

19 May 2022

Bald move: Tribunal was right in sex-related harassment...

17 May 2022

Lack of flexibility pushes half of women to...

16 May 2022

MP demands timeline on carer’s leave legislation

13 May 2022

Employment tribunal: use of word ‘bald’ can amount...

13 May 2022

Queen’s Speech: absence of employment bill leaves organisations...

10 May 2022

Queen’s Speech: Exclusivity contracts for low-paid workers to...

9 May 2022

MP seeks legal protections for employees undergoing fertility...

9 May 2022
  • Apprenticeships are the solution to your recruitment problems PROMOTED | Apprenticeships have the pulling power...Read more
  • What it really means to be mentally fit PROMOTED | What is mental fitness...Read more
  • How music can help to ease anxiety at work PROMOTED | A lot has happened since March 2020, hasn’t it?...Read more
  • Why now is the time to plug the unhealthy gap PROMOTED | We’ve all heard the term ‘health is wealth’...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
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • Maternity & Paternity
    • 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+