Claimant v Fetch! Retail Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found on the evidence that the reason for dismissal was redundancy, not maternity leave. The respondent was making losses of £20,000 a week and made 7 redundancies including a male colleague in the same role. The tribunal concluded the claimant's maternity leave was merely coincidental to the redundancy.
The tribunal found that the delay in redundancy consultation did not amount to unfavourable treatment as it protected the claimant's position and extended her employment, giving her more time to find alternative work. The cancellation of KIT days was unfavourable treatment but was done because the line manager was too busy with redundancy consultations, not because of maternity leave. No suitable alternative roles existed.
The tribunal found that the delay in redundancy consultation was not a detriment, and the cancellation of KIT days, whilst a detriment, was not done for a prescribed reason under section 47C(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 but rather due to business pressures from redundancy consultations.
Facts
The claimant was a Senior Category Manager employed from April 2022, transferring to the respondent via TUPE in February 2023. She took maternity leave from November 2022 to November 2023. The respondent was making losses of £20,000 per week and conducted a restructure in October 2023, placing 7 employees at risk of redundancy including the claimant's male colleague in the same role. The respondent delayed placing the claimant at risk until her return from maternity leave on 6 November 2023, following HR advice. Redundancy consultation followed and the claimant was dismissed on notice on 4 January 2024 with her employment terminating on 27 March 2024. She found new higher-paid employment starting 4 March 2024.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found the reason for dismissal was genuine redundancy, not maternity leave, as evidenced by the financial losses, the redundancy of a male colleague in the same role, and the lack of suitable alternative employment. The delay in consultation was protective of the claimant rather than detrimental. The cancellation of KIT days was unfavourable treatment but was due to business pressures from redundancy consultations, not maternity leave.
Practical note
Delaying redundancy consultation to protect an employee on maternity leave is lawful and does not constitute unfavourable treatment where it extends employment and provides more time to find alternative work, particularly where a comparable male colleague is also made redundant.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1800900/2024
- Decision date
- 11 April 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Senior Category Manager
- Salary band
- £60,000–£80,000
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep