Restructure dispute over Saturday working: religious and disability claims struck out
Two campus support officers claimed unfair dismissal and discrimination after a restructure introduced Saturday working. The tribunal struck out most claims, allowing only one ordinary unfair dismissal claim to proceed.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #restructuring
- #saturday-working
- #religious-belief
- #disability-discrimination
- #protected-disclosure
- #strike-out
Key facts
- The claimants were campus support officers at Kirklees College.
- In 2019, the college proposed a restructure, later implemented in Spring 2021.
- The restructure included a potential six-day working pattern with up to six Saturdays per year.
- Mr Baker, a Seventh-day Adventist, objected to Saturday working on religious grounds.
- Mr Baker eventually agreed to a contract excluding Saturday working and remains employed.
- Mr Horrobin was dismissed on 30 July 2021 after refusing the new terms.
Timeline
-
Restructure proposed
Kirklees College proposed a restructure of its campus support officer role.
-
Pandemic delays restructure
Implementation of the restructure was put on hold due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
-
Restructure implementation begins
Consultations with unions commenced in Spring 2021.
-
Mr Horrobin dismissed
Mr Horrobin was issued notice of termination with two days' notice, effective 1 August 2021, and paid 12 weeks' pay in lieu.
-
Mr Baker issued notice
Mr Baker was issued notice of termination effective 6 September 2021, but later negotiated a contract excluding Saturday working.
-
Mr Baker remains employed
Mr Baker signed a new contract and remained employed.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Lancaster held a preliminary hearing to consider strike-out and deposit applications.
-
Judgment sent
The judgment striking out most claims was sent to the parties.
-
Written reasons provided
Written reasons for the preliminary hearing judgment were issued.
-
Further preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Davies struck out additional complaints in claim 1805907/2021.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimants' claims had a reasonable prospect of success, specifically whether Mr Baker's religious discrimination and protected disclosure claims, and Mr Horrobin's associative disability discrimination and unfair dismissal claims, should be struck out.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out all of Mr Baker's claims and most of Mr Horrobin's claims at a preliminary hearing, finding they had no reasonable prospect of success.
- Mr Baker's claims of religious discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and protected disclosure detriment were struck out.
- Mr Horrobin's claims of automatic unfair dismissal (for asserting a right to time off for dependants) and associative disability discrimination were struck out.
- Mr Horrobin's ordinary unfair dismissal claim was allowed to proceed.
- No compensation was awarded as the claims were dismissed before trial.
Lessons & takeaways
- Claims that lack a reasonable prospect of success can be struck out early, saving time and costs.
- Religious objections to working patterns must be clearly linked to a specific protected belief and show disadvantage.
- Associative discrimination claims require evidence that the alleged discrimination was because of the associate's disability.
- Protected disclosure claims must demonstrate that the disclosure was made in the public interest.
Restructure leads to dispute over Saturday working
Two campus support officers at Kirklees College faced a restructure in 2021 that introduced a potential six-day working pattern, including up to six Saturdays per year. One officer, Mr Baker, a Seventh-day Adventist, objected on religious grounds but later negotiated a contract excluding Saturday work and remained employed. The other, Mr Horrobin, refused the new terms and was dismissed with notice and pay in lieu.
Both brought multiple claims including unfair dismissal, religious discrimination, disability discrimination, and protected disclosure. However, at a preliminary hearing, the tribunal struck out most of these claims, finding they had no reasonable prospect of success.
Why the claims failed
Mr Baker's religious discrimination claim failed because he had not been subjected to a detriment – he secured a contract without Saturday working and remained employed. His protected disclosure claim was struck out as the disclosures were not in the public interest. Mr Horrobin's claim of associative disability discrimination (based on his wife's and father-in-law's disabilities) was struck out because there was no evidence that the restructure or dismissal was because of their disabilities.
What this means for similar cases
This case shows the importance of having a clear legal basis for each claim. Tribunals will strike out claims early if they lack reasonable prospects, especially where the employee has not suffered a clear detriment or where the link to a protected characteristic is weak. Employers should ensure restructuring processes are fair and consider individual circumstances, but employees must also ensure their claims are grounded in evidence and law. Mr Horrobin's ordinary unfair dismissal claim will proceed, highlighting that not all claims are without merit.
Similar cases
Claim dismissed after failing to comply with Unless Order: a cautionary tale
A former employee's claims for constructive dismissal, disability discrimination and protected disclosure detriment were struck out after she failed to comply with an Unless Order requiring further details of her complaints.
Voluntary redundancy: stage crew member with dyslexia wins unfair dismissal claim
A long-serving stage crew member with dyslexia has won his unfair dismissal claim against Welsh National Opera after the tribunal found the employer failed to discuss reasonable adjustments during a redundancy process. All other claims, including age discrimination and protected disclosure complaints, were dismissed.
Former employee's claims dismissed after failing to attend final hearing
An employment tribunal dismissed all remaining claims of a former employee who did not attend the final hearing and failed to comply with court orders, ending a case that had already lost several claims due to non-compliance.
Claim struck out after failure to comply with tribunal orders due to ill-health
A former employee's unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims against Marks and Spencer were struck out after she failed to comply with tribunal orders and did not actively pursue her claim.