A dementia care worker has been awarded £3,300 compensation in a claim over flexible working that has set a precedent.

The case is the first involving flexible working to reach a final decision by the employment tribunal.

Jade Graham, who works as a support worker at the government-run Sweetbriar care home in Farmhill, took her case to the tribunal, claiming due process had not been followed and internal policy had not been followed.

She also contended that she had suffered sex discrimination.

Mrs Graham, who is originally from the Philippines, began work with the Department of Health and Social Care in February last year. Her husband also works for the DHSC as a nurse but in a different department.

As a young mother, she wanted to change her working arrangements to allow her to care for her young child who, at the date of her application to the tribunal was 17 months old.

She and her husband wanted to arrange their shifts so they could look after their baby between them, but with the support of a child-minder.

Mrs Graham proposed an arrangement whereby she worked night duty only.

The DHSC denied the allegation of discrimination and also refuted that it was behaving unreasonably in not agreeing to the arrangements she was proposing.

It said it could not accede to her request because having an employee working only on permanent night duties has a detrimental impact on quality of service and that there would be a burden of additional costs.

The DHSC insisted it had put forward a range of alternative options and had provided support to Mrs Graham in a reasonable manner.

The tribunal felt that there was blame on both sides for the unsatisfactory outcome.

But it also found that while Mrs Graham’s bosses were all trying to be supportive, they were ’locked in a silo of their own making’.

’In short, there was a failure of imagination leading to missed opportunities for more constructive dialogue,’ the tribunal found.

The silo approach adopted lacked good judgement by ignoring pleas for evidence to be obtained from Mr Graham’s unit.

There was unjustified resistance to talking to Mr Graham even although it was known that it was a husband/wife/child situation which underpinned Mrs Graham’s application.

’It is correct that it was Mrs Graham’s application that had to be determined but approaching it on a silo basis was flawed,’ the tribunal found.

The tribunal awarded compensation of £3,300, describing this as being ’just and equitable’.