An employee has accused Primark of "sexism" after she was told by the retail giant that she must make herself available to work late shifts. The mum worked as a department manager at a Primark in Bury, Manchester, but after her request to change her hours was refused, she took her case to an employment tribunal.
The unnamed woman had applied for her contracted hours to be changed as she prepared to return to work in November 2019 following a period of maternity leave, the tribunal heard. However, the store's manager told the tribunal he had been prepared to agree to accommodate the woman's request not to work late shifts except on Thursdays.
As a result, the woman took her case to be heard at a tribunal citing indirect sex discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal but was unsuccessful. However, she won an appeal hearing last month and a judge has now ordered that her case be heard again after ruling the original tribunal "failed to properly address" her complaint, the MEN reports.
Read more: Perrie Edwards has late night curry after first of Little Mix's Newcastle gigs
He added that she would not have to work every Thursday late shift - between 10.30am and 8.30pm - but would need to guarantee her availability to work if "absolutely necessary and there was no alternative cover". However, the woman claimed her childcare responsibilities meant she could not do that as she had sole responsibility for her child and only limited support from her mother.
The dispute eventually led to the woman, who had worked at Primark for more than eight years, resigning from her position. In her claim against Primark, she argued that the contractual requirement for department managers to guarantee availability "put women at a particular disadvantage compared to men", a claim the retailer disputes.
Although the employment tribunal dismissed her case, her appeal was upheld by the president of the employment appeal tribunal, Mrs Justice Eady. She said that in assessing the woman's case, the tribunal had compared the discriminatory impact on her to two male colleagues to whom Primark "had not applied the same degree of compulsion, namely the requirement that they guarantee their availability for the late shifts in question."
The judge added that there was "no obvious logic" to the pool selected, and therefore the tribunal's conclusions "must be set aside in their entirety". The case will now return to the original tribunal, which will reconsider the claims of indirect discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal.
A Primark spokesperson said: "We are aware of the case in question. Equality and fairness are core values we hold dear at Primark, and are the foundation of how we work to provide supportive and inclusive workplaces for every employee."
