Yorkshire caretaker loses employment tribunal against Kirklees College after judge rules his family duties were not the reason he objected to working Saturdays

David Horrobin had a caretaking role at Kirklees College’s Dewsbury site, but problems arose in the summer of 2021, when an increase in the number of evening classes at the campus and open days on weekends required facilities management to restructure staff hours.

Mr Horrobin and his colleagues were offered new contracts that stipulated that they could be asked to work 2-10pm shifts, as opposed to the previous finish time of 9.30pm, and occasional Saturday shifts of up to six per year.

Mr Horrobin has care responsibilities for both his wife and father-in-law, and had been in a long-term informal arrangement with the college that he would not work late shifts on Mondays, Wednesdays or Fridays, when he undertook tasks such as shopping, cleaning and cooking for them.

An employment tribunal in Leeds heard that the college had told Mr Horrobin that ‘realistically’ his hours would not be substantially different as they were prepared to be flexible, but he became worried that under the contract’s terms, it could be upheld to the letter.

Because he did not sign the contract by the deadline, his employment was terminated and he also missed the deadline for an appeal due to a mix-up with his union representative.

Giving evidence, HR director Jane Simpson, who chaired the panel that dismissed Mr Horrobin, said that during the dismissal meeting, it had been ‘difficult’ to get information out of Mr Horrobin and that the contents of a grievance he had submitted were nothing that had not already been discussed during the consultation process with all staff affected.

Mrs Simpson strongly refuted that she knew of his caring responsibilities, only that his line managers had made concessions for him previously. In the meeting, she claimed he only mentioned shopping for his father-in-law when asked about his family commitments and did not raise any issues.

She said she felt many concessions had been made and that a lot of the proposed duties had already been stripped out of the original job description. She added that he had worked on Saturdays in the past as overtime when premium pay rates were offered. She confirmed he had missed the 10-day window to appeal after his dismissal letter was sent.

Also cross-examined was the college’s estates and facilities director Daniel Bedford, who said he was not aware of care issues with Mr Horrobin’s father-in-law until the July 30 dismissal panel, and that the commitments had not been stated in ‘any detail’. He added that the reason Mr Horrobin had not worked Monday, Wednesday or Friday late shifts prior to the restructure was that nobody in the team had due to there being no business need to. The contract issued was standard across all of the college’s eight sites, some of which were open later than others. He had spoken informally to Mr Horrobin and reassured him there would be local flexibility over shift times. He said that during these discussions, Mr Horrobin seemed more concerned about potential changes to his duties, such as gardening and security work.

Mr Horrobin was questioned by employment lawyer Hari Menon, who asked him if his objections were primarily about his caring duties. He agreed his employer had been accommodating in the past, but that he feared that the contract could be enforced and the informal reassurances over-ridden.

Mr Horrobin answered no when he asked if he had objected to ‘unilateral changed being forced on him’, but Mr Menon then discussed the contents of a grievance submitted to the college on July 18, which referred to ‘forced unilateral variation of contract’, a ‘lack of transparency’ and a ‘significantly increased workload without higher salary’, but made no mention of his caring responsibilities. Mr Menon suggested that the needs of Mr Horrobin’s family members may have been used as a ‘smokescreen’ during the grievance process, but Mr Horrobin said he had not included them in the grievance because he thought the college had known about them for years and believed that this would be on record.

He was then questioned over email communication about his dismissal letter, which was sent just after 2pm on the day the panel met. Mr Horrobin claimed not to have checked emails until around August 13, when he returned from holiday and saw that his employment had been terminated. However, evidence was produced showing he had emailed Jane Simpson at 2.25pm on July 30. He agreed he had logged into his account to contact her, but claimed not to have seen or read the letter on the day it was sent.

Mr Menon also asked why Mr Horrobin’s union representative had discussed concerns over health and safety, extra duties and Saturday shifts in the July 30 meeting, but Mr Horrobin responded that he believed this was in a ‘collective’ context related to all of the staff affected.

Finding in favour of the college, Judge Nathan Moxon ruled that the employer had acted ‘reasonably’ throughout the process and that the ultimate dismissal of Mr Horrobin was a reasonable course of action when he refused to accept the terms of the new contract.

Judge Moxon said: “He was offered alternative roles that were suitable, and the added duties had been abandoned. It was a similar role and 14 of the 15 campus support officers agreed to it. It was not a significant change from the old contract, other than the 10pm rather than 9.30pm finishing time and it included Fridays. Under the old contract, different hours had always been a possibility. I accept Daniel Bedford’s evidence that Mr Horrobin was unlikely to have had to work those hours and the standardised times in the contract were to ensure flexibility, but there was local agreement.

"It was reasonable to expect the claimant to accept the role and I do not accept he had objections on account of his caring duties. I am persuaded by Mr Menon that he refused to sign the contract because he was aggrieved by the changes and did not believed he would be adequately compensated. Within none of the forms were the care needs outlined adequately as the sole reason for refusal, and the precise needs were not outlined. That omission is significant.

"The claimant was always given reassurances but failed to engage with discussions. It was not his genuine reason to object and he engaged in a pattern of behaviour that frustrated the process. He would have been retained if he had signed the contract.”