20-year store assistant dismissed after refusing new shift pattern: dismissal fair
A Sainsbury's store assistant with 20 years' service was fairly dismissed after refusing to accept a change to her working hours as part of a business reorganisation. The tribunal upheld the employer's decision.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #business-reorganisation
- #refusal-to-accept-changed-terms
- #consultation-process
- #educational-needs
- #job-share-proposal
- #20-years-service
Key facts
- The Claimant worked for the Respondent for 20 years as a Store Assistant.
- The Respondent conducted a review and proposed changes to working hours to better match customer demand.
- The Claimant refused to agree to the new working pattern due to personal commitments.
- 11 out of 13 Customer Experience team members agreed to the changes.
- The Claimant was dismissed and offered re-engagement on the new terms, which she refused.
- The Tribunal found the dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
Timeline
-
Collective consultation begins
Collective consultation on the Proposal to change working hours began in July 2021.
-
First individual consultation meeting
Mr Lewis held the first individual consultation meeting with the Claimant.
-
Second individual consultation meeting
The Claimant raised the possibility of a job share with Elaine, which was not considered viable.
-
Third individual consultation meeting and dismissal
The Claimant was given notice of dismissal after refusing to agree to the new terms.
-
Offer of re-engagement
The Claimant was offered re-engagement on the revised terms, which she refused.
-
Appeal hearing
Mr Lyne heard the Claimant's appeal and upheld the decision to dismiss.
-
Appeal outcome confirmed
Mr Lyne confirmed in writing that the appeal was dismissed.
-
Flexible working request
The Claimant made a flexible working request, which was refused on 13 January 2022.
-
Employment terminated
The Claimant's employment ended.
-
Claim form filed
The Claimant filed her claim for unfair dismissal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal of a long-serving employee for refusing to agree to a change in working hours was fair, given the employer's business reorganisation and the consultation process.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim of unfair dismissal. It found that Sainsbury's had a sound business reason for the changes, conducted collective and individual consultation, and considered alternatives such as job shares. The dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers can fairly dismiss employees who refuse to accept reasonable changes to working hours if there is a genuine business need and proper consultation.
- Length of service does not automatically make a dismissal unfair if the employer follows a fair process and the reason is a genuine business reorganisation.
- Employees should raise any disability-related needs during consultation to ensure reasonable adjustments are considered.
- Offering re-engagement on the new terms can strengthen an employer's case that dismissal was a last resort.
A business need for change
Sainsbury's identified that customer demand at its Whitstable store was not matched by staff working hours. To remain competitive, it proposed that all Customer Experience team members work a weekend day or an evening shift. The store assistant, who had worked there for 20 years on a pattern that suited her personal commitments, refused to agree.
Consultation and alternatives
The employer consulted collectively and individually, holding three meetings with the assistant. She raised the possibility of a job share, but the employer considered it not viable. Eleven of the 13 team members accepted the new terms. The assistant was dismissed and offered re-engagement on the new terms, which she declined.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal found that Sainsbury's had a genuine business reason for the changes and acted within the range of reasonable responses. The consultation process was adequate, and the employer had considered alternatives. The assistant's 20 years of service did not make the dismissal unfair. The claim was dismissed.
Similar cases
Constructive dismissal claim over new Deputy Practice Manager role fails
A GP practice assistant manager with 14 years' service resigned after learning of a proposed new role, claiming constructive dismissal. The tribunal rejected her claim, finding no breach of trust and confidence.
Redundancy dismissal upheld after employee refused selection interviews
A Client Account Manager with 4 years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after refusing to attend selection interviews and declining an alternative role. The tribunal upheld the dismissal by a majority, finding the redundancy genuine and the process reasonable.
CCTV operatives made redundant: fair dismissal after consultation and alternative roles offered
Three long-serving CCTV operatives who refused to apply for ringfenced Community Guardian roles were fairly dismissed by reason of redundancy. The tribunal upheld the employer's consultation process and offer of alternative employment.
Dismissed after 24 years for refusing contract changes: a procedurally unfair SOSR dismissal
A line operator with 24 years' service was unfairly dismissed after refusing to accept new terms and conditions. The tribunal found the process flawed but ruled he would have been dismissed anyway by a later date.