Getting rid of an autistic worker once they ask to be paid isn’t a great look for any employer. Just ask Waitrose. This morning its PR department awoke to a flurry of headlines decrying its decision to “sack” (some outlets plumped for “axe”) Tom Boyd, 28, who had been stacking shelves at the retailer for four years – but only once his mum asked about the possibility of being paid for some of that work.

Note the use of the word ‘worker’ in that opening sentence, because technically Tom was a volunteer at the retailer’s Cheadle Hulme store rather than a full employee. Unfortunately for him, volunteers do not have the same rights as employees, but that doesn’t stop the affair from leaving a sour taste in the mouth.

His mum, charity worker Frances Boyd, said Tom had clocked up more than 600 hours at the store, working “two full mornings” every week emptying cages, stacking shelves and generally helping out.

Waitrose told her that Tom couldn’t be offered a job because he couldn’t “do the full role”. For example, he has limited communication skills so is largely unable to interact with customers.

“After everything he’s done, there was no apology, no thanks, and no recognition for his commitment. Just silence,” she said. “Waitrose made no effort to make any reasonable adjustments for him – even though the Equality Act 2010 clearly states that employers must make reasonable adjustments for disabled people and that it’s unlawful to treat someone unfavourably because of their disability.”

While Tom’s status as a volunteer appears to negate the protections afforded by the Equality Act, it’s not quite that clear cut. Jo Martin, employment lawyer at Bellevue Law, said she “can’t see how this would qualify as genuine volunteering, as the work isn’t voluntary in nature, and Waitrose is not a charity”.

But even taking into account the legal technicalities of the situation, it’s no surprise Tom’s case has hit a nerve. It just doesn’t feel right, does it?

Good intentions don’t pay the bills 

Almost undoubtedly, this arrangement originally came from a good place, and Waitrose should rightly get credit for that. But usually, work experience and even internships have set time limits – so at what point does doing a good thing tip into taking advantage and exploiting free labour?

It’s certainly a grey area. This morning, The Grocer has been made aware of similar situations at other retailers, where neurodivergent and/or disabled people have been given roles that have never been formalised – or paid. One off-the-record source relayed the story of a colleague who has been working one full day a week in retail for more than seven years without ever receiving payment.

Of course, in Tom’s case, Waitrose was likely unaware of any desire for payment – until his mum asked the question. It’s now been more than two months since his last shift, and the best that a Waitrose spokesperson could offer yesterday was that, while the retailer was “sorry to hear of Tom’s story”, it “cannot comment on individual cases” and was “investigating as a priority”.

Frances first asked about the possibility of payment back in July. Some priority.

To be fair to Waitrose, if this was a localised arrangement approved by a store manager, there’s every chance that head office had no knowledge of Tom’s role because he wasn’t a formal employee. That could explain the two-month delay (funny what a national media outcry can do, isn’t it?), though it does invite questions about the processes and protections in place for anyone working on a more ad hoc basis, regardless of their vulnerability. 

A PR nightmare

It is not entirely surprising that there are no official policies in place for this kind of work, as allowing neurodivergent and/or disabled people to work for free is, if nothing else, a potential PR nightmare. As Waitrose is now finding out. 

But it’s complicated – being paid for work can sometimes affect a person’s disability benefits, meaning many people in this situation may be happy to remain unpaid helpers; keeping busy and feeling valued but ultimately with no responsibility. But was Tom ever asked?

It’s important that retailers do not feel discouraged from providing these types of opportunities, but it feels like much of this whole media outcry could have been avoided by better communication from Waitrose. What exactly was the role? How long would it last? And would there ever be an option for remuneration? Perhaps some of those things were made clear – but it appears the last one wasn’t.

In the end, it’s hard to shake the nagging question: would it have killed a supermarket that posted operating profits of £227m in 2024 to pay Tom for a couple of hours of paid work?

Imagine the boost that would have given Tom’s confidence and self-worth. And imagine the furore it would have saved a retailer that goes out of its way to refer to workers as ‘partners’. Food to Feel Good About, anyone?

Topics