Unsuccessful claim before the WRC re refusal to facilitate a three-day job share to accommodate childcare responsibilities.

The Complainant was a teacher employed by the Respondent secondary school and was due to return to work in autumn 2024 following maternity leave and an approved career break. She sought a job share arrangement over three days per week to accommodate childcare responsibilities. The Respondent refused to guarantee a three-day timetable and would only agree to a job share spread over four days, which the Complainant submitted was unworkable as it required full-time childcare on a reduced salary. She alleged discrimination on gender and family status grounds, penalisation for seeking flexible working, victimisation, and constructive dismissal. The Complainant argued that the Respondent delayed providing her timetable, failed to meaningfully engage with her requests, and forced her into an unpaid career break. She further submitted that she was excluded from workplace systems, denied clarity on her return to work, and treated less favourably than colleagues in job share arrangements. She contended that the Respondent’s conduct caused significant stress and undermined her ability to return to work.

The Respondent denied all allegations and submitted that the Complainant remained an employee and had not been dismissed. It was argued that the Respondent engaged extensively with the Complainant regarding job share requests and applied the governing circular correctly. The Respondent maintained that job sharing arrangements could not be conditional on specific timetabling preferences and that management retained discretion over attendance patterns. The Respondent submitted that timetables were issued in August in line with normal practice and that the Complainant was not treated differently to colleagues. It was further submitted that the Complainant voluntarily applied for and was granted a career break due to childcare constraints. The Respondent denied penalisation, discrimination, or victimisation and stated that continued engagement occurred through union representatives. Any system access issues were attributed to administrative or technical matters rather than deliberate action. Referrals to occupational health were submitted to be appropriate and not punitive.

The Adjudicating Officer found that no dismissal had occurred, as the Complainant remained employed at the time the complaints were lodged. Jurisdiction was limited to events within the statutory six-month period. The Adjudicator found that refusal to grant a specific flexible working arrangement did not constitute penalisation under the Parental Leave Act. The career break was requested by the Complainant and was not imposed by the Respondent. In relation to the Employment Equality Acts, the Adjudicator found that the Complainant failed to establish primary facts from which discrimination on gender or family status could be inferred. The evidence showed that timetables were issued in line with standard practice and not later than those of colleagues. The Adjudicator also rejected the victimisation claims, finding that the Respondent continued to engage with the Complainant and that decisions such as occupational health referral were reasonable. All complaints were found not well founded and were dismissed.

Employers should:                

• Ensure that flexible working and job share schemes are administered strictly in accordance with governing policies or circulars, while clearly communicating managerial discretion over operational requirements such as timetabling. Clarity on what can and cannot be accommodated is recommended in managing employee expectations.  
   
  
• Ensure that timelines are agreed where employees are returning from maternity leave, parental leave, or career breaks. While operational realities may dictate when timetables are finalised, employers should explain these constraints and apply them to all staff to avoid perceptions of differential treatment. 
   
  
• Maintain structured engagement channels and document all interactions carefully. Reasonable steps taken to protect employee welfare, including occupational health referrals, should be clearly grounded in evidence and policy.

The full case can be found here.