For years, a young man found routine and pride in a supermarket aisle. One short conversation upended that fragile progress.
Tom Boyd, 27, who is autistic, spent more than four years on work experience at Waitrose in Cheadle Hulme, Greater Manchester. He turned up two mornings a week, restocked shelves and supported staff. His family say he gave more than 600 hours. When they asked about a small number of paid hours, they were told he could not do the full role. They argue the store failed to offer reasonable adjustments. Waitrose says it aims to be inclusive and is now looking into the case.
More than four years. Around 600 unpaid hours. Two mornings each week. A request for paid shifts ended with a refusal.
From routine to rejection
Tom’s parents describe how their son thrived on predictable tasks and a steady routine. He unloaded stock cages, filled shelves and pitched in with simple requests. Staff at the branch made him feel welcome, they say, and he felt part of a team. That sense of belonging mattered as much as the work itself.
After years of turning up, the family asked whether the store could offer a handful of paid hours. Not a token gesture, they stress, but recognition of consistent effort and a way to build independence. The response, relayed by the family, was blunt: Tom would not be employed because he could not perform the full range of duties.
His mother, Frances, believes the company should have discussed adjustments. In her view, the store could have shaped a short, repeatable shift around tasks he already did well. Instead, she says, the door closed without thanks or a plan.
| Period | Commitment | Typical tasks | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Over four years | Two mornings a week | Unloading cages, shelf filling, helping staff | Unpaid work experience |
| 2025 | Request for paid hours | Short, fixed shift proposed | Refused: told he could not do the full role |
| Now | Family seek review | Calls for adjustments | Waitrose says it is investigating |
What Waitrose says
Waitrose says it works with charities to provide work experience and has experience making reasonable adjustments. The retailer says it cannot comment on an individual case, but will prioritise an internal review of what happened. The company’s public stance points to inclusion, although the family’s account raises questions about the gap between policy and practice at store level.
Policies promise inclusion. The test comes when a simple, paid role could be carved from tasks someone already performs.
What the law expects
Under the Equality Act 2010, employers must make reasonable adjustments for disabled people. Adjustments could involve changing hours, reallocating non‑essential tasks, offering a quieter space, or providing a coach. The duty applies where a person would be disadvantaged by workplace arrangements.
“Can’t do the full role” is not always the end of the discussion. If some tasks are not intrinsic to the job, an employer may need to adjust the role so a disabled worker can succeed. If a role genuinely requires certain duties for safety or business need, the employer should show why those tasks cannot be removed.
There is a separate question about pay. Genuine volunteers and some student placements can be unpaid. But if a person counts as a “worker”—for example, with set hours and responsibilities—they are normally entitled to at least the National Minimum Wage. Family members say Tom’s placement was arranged as work experience; whether that crosses into “worker” status depends on the detail of control, obligation and benefit to the employer.
A wider problem: disabled people and work
Tom’s story reflects a stubborn employment gap. Fewer disabled people are in paid work than non‑disabled people. For autistic adults, the gap is wider still; only a small minority have paid jobs, and full‑time roles are rarer. Routine, predictable tasks can unlock real contribution, but hiring systems often prioritise generalists who can rotate between many duties at pace.
Retail is full of time‑bound tasks that reward focus and consistency: morning replenishment, date checks, back‑room sorting, click‑and‑collect picking. Those tasks can suit candidates who prefer clear structure. Several supermarkets and logistics firms already use targeted recruitment with job‑coaching support. The lesson from those schemes is uncomplicated: match the person to the task, then measure what they deliver, not what they cannot do.
- Reasonable adjustments that often help in retail:
- Fixed, short shifts at predictable times.
- Clear written task lists and simple visual guides.
- A named buddy or coach for check‑ins.
- Quieter start times away from peak noise.
- “Job carving”: build a role from specific, essential tasks.
If this happens to you
Families facing similar setbacks can take practical steps. Start by asking the employer to set out, in writing, the tasks they say are essential and why. Suggest concrete adjustments tied to specific duties. Keep records of hours worked, responsibilities and any supervision.
- Request a written explanation of the decision and the role’s core duties.
- Propose adjustments and offer a time‑limited paid trial to test them.
- Ask for support through Access to Work, which can fund job coaches, travel and equipment.
- Use the employer’s grievance process if discussions stall.
- Seek advice from ACAS about early conciliation deadlines if you are considering a claim.
Families also ask a practical question: what is the value of the time already given? At the 2024 National Living Wage of £11.44 an hour for over‑21s, 600 hours would equate to about £6,864 before tax. That figure does not decide legal status, but it does highlight the scale of contribution often made in long‑running “experience” placements.
What Waitrose could do next
The company’s investigation can move beyond a narrow yes‑or‑no on one role. A store can map tasks by time of day, then identify where a short, repeatable shift adds most value. A two‑hour replenishment slot before opening, a daily date‑check circuit, or a tidy‑and‑facing routine in low‑traffic aisles are all measurable. A paid, carved role with a named buddy could be trialled and reviewed with simple productivity metrics.
A chain‑wide review might also look at how work experience converts into paid hours. If stores host placements through a charity partner, they can set a clear pathway: induction, skills log, mid‑placement review, and a decision point that considers adjustments before any refusal.
Key terms and practical context
Reasonable adjustment: a change to remove a substantial disadvantage caused by disability. It must be proportionate and workable. Examples include flexible hours, extra training, task reallocation and assistive tech.
Job carving: designing a role from specific, essential tasks that match a person’s strengths. This approach is common in supported employment and can lift productivity because valued tasks get consistent attention.
Worker vs volunteer: control, obligation and benefit matter more than labels. Set hours and set duties, done for the benefit of the business, can point towards worker status and pay rights. Genuine volunteers can say no to shifts without penalty and should not be tied to rosters like staff.
Families often find momentum by proposing something testable. A four‑week paid pilot with clear targets can settle doubts, minimise risk for the employer and give the candidate a fair run at success. If the trial shows value, the shift becomes part of the rota. If not, both sides have evidence for their next step.
Four years of steady effort deserves more than a blunt no. If Tom can do key tasks reliably, why not carve a small paid shift and measure output? Reasonable ajustments aren’t charity; they’re a legal duty under the Equality Act. This feels like a missed chance for dignity, independence and, frankly, good business—consistency on morning replenishment is valuable.