Four years, 600 hours, zero pay at Waitrose: would your family accept being refused a job?

For years, a familiar face stacked shelves and shifted stock. Now a heated question hangs over what fairness looks like.

In Greater Manchester, a dispute over unpaid work experience at a busy supermarket has become a test of values, rights and promises. It involves a young autistic man, hundreds of hours of voluntary labour, and a decision that left his family stunned.

A four-year routine, then a hard stop

Tom Boyd, 27, spent two full mornings every week on work experience at the Waitrose store in Cheadle Hulme. He restocked shelves, emptied cages of deliveries and helped colleagues across the shop floor. His mum, Frances, says he gave more than 600 hours of his time because he wanted to belong and contribute.

When the family asked whether some paid hours might be possible, they say the answer was no. They were told Tom could not be offered a job because he could not fulfil the full role. For them, the decision felt abrupt after years of routine and relationships with staff who, they say, welcomed him as part of the team.

More than 600 hours over four years. Two mornings a week. No pay. Then a firm no to a contract.

What Tom did each week

• Unloaded and broke down four or more cages of stock per shift.
• Replenished ambient and chilled aisles with guidance from colleagues.
• Supported simple backroom tasks that matched his strengths and routine.
• Worked within a predictable schedule: two complete mornings every week.

Family say reasonable adjustments were refused

Frances argues the store could have formalised a narrower set of duties into paid hours, rather than requiring the full, multi‑task role description used for many supermarket assistants. She says this would have counted as a “reasonable adjustment” for a disabled worker under the Equality Act 2010.

In a detailed social media post, she described pride in her son’s commitment, and frustration that, after years of turning up on time and delivering value, there was no offer of paid work or even clear thanks. Her message resonated locally, with readers asking why a consistent, proven routine could not be translated into paid shifts tailored to his strengths.

“Reasonable adjustments” can include carving out specific tasks, adapting rotas and providing job‑coaching support.

Waitrose says it is investigating

Waitrose, part of the John Lewis Partnership, says it strives to be an inclusive employer. The company says it partners with charities to offer work experience and has extensive experience in supporting people with adjustments at work. It has now opened an investigation into what happened in this case, saying it cannot comment on individual circumstances while it looks into the details.

The company’s statement suggests a central question for that review: whether a job description must be applied as an all‑or‑nothing package, or whether a narrower set of duties could be contracted, with pay and support, for someone who has already demonstrated reliability in those tasks.

The wider picture: autism and work in the UK

Charities and official statistics have long warned that autistic adults have the lowest employment rate among disabled people. Campaigners say the gap persists not because autistic people cannot work, but because hiring processes and job designs often exclude them. Interviews prioritise small talk and eye contact. Job ads bundle many tasks. Busy shopfloors can overwhelm without small changes.

Support professionals often recommend “job carving” in retail. That means building a role around consistent, repeatable tasks that suit the worker, such as replenishment on set aisles at steady times, rather than expecting a shift to include every duty from checkouts to customer service desks. Many supermarkets already do this informally. The argument here is whether that practical model should also translate into paid, secure work when it has clearly been proven.

What counts as a reasonable adjustment in retail

• Clear, written task lists for each shift, with visual prompts.
• Fixed start times and predictable breaks to reduce anxiety.
• Quieter work windows, or noise‑reduction measures away from peak rush.
• A buddy or job coach during transitions or when tasks change.
• Fewer customer‑facing duties if communication differences make that stressful.

Pay, trials and the line between experience and employment

UK law does not set a strict time limit on work experience, but the longer and more routine the arrangement, the more it starts to resemble employment. If someone must perform set tasks at set times for the benefit of a business, questions about pay and status follow. Families sometimes accept extended placements in the hope of a job. When that does not happen, the sense of rejection is real.

Advocates recommend clarity from the outset: how long the placement will last, what outcomes are possible, and what conditions might trigger an offer. Written agreements help avoid disappointment later. They also give both parties a shared picture of what “success” looks like.

Clarity at the start of a placement protects everyone: set the length, the outcomes and the route to paid work.

If this happens to you: practical steps

Families in similar situations can ask for a formal review with HR and store leadership. Request feedback in writing, including which parts of the role are said to be unsuitable, and propose adjustments that match the duties already performed successfully. Ask for a trial period on paid hours focused only on those tasks, with regular check‑ins.

• Reference the Equality Act 2010 duty to make reasonable adjustments.
• Highlight the tasks already done well and suggest a scoped job built around them.
• Request involvement from a job coach or supported employment provider.
• Consider the Access to Work scheme for funding workplace support.
• Keep a record of dates, hours, duties and any feedback given.

If disagreements persist, independent advice can help. ACAS provides guidance on reasonable adjustments. Disability employment advisers can help shape a viable job plan. If someone believes discrimination has occurred, legal time limits apply for bringing a claim, so early advice matters.

Why this case resonates

Most readers know a family with a young person who thrives on structure and routine. Seeing that routine valued is what builds confidence and independence. When a business benefits from that steady work but declines to formalise even a narrow role, it triggers a wider debate: are we matching jobs to people, or forcing people to fit jobs that could be tweaked with minimal disruption?

The company’s investigation may yet yield a different outcome for Tom. It will also shape how people view the promises many employers make about inclusion. What happens next in Cheadle Hulme will be read far beyond one store, because thousands of families are watching for the signal that consistent effort can still open a door.