Claimant v AHRO Scientific Publishing Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
R1 failed to pay C for August 2023 (£2,666.66) and for 22 days in September 2023 (£1,955.58). These sums were properly payable. No contractual or statutory basis for withholding payment was advanced. The tribunal found unauthorised deductions totalling £4,622.24 gross.
C had 12.5 days' accrued untaken annual leave at termination. R1 made no payment in lieu. Under Reg 14 Working Time Regulations 1998, this is enforceable as an unauthorised deduction from wages. Award: £1,111.13 gross.
C's contract entitled her to one month's written notice. R1 dismissed her on 22 September 2023 without any notice or payment in lieu. This was a breach of contract. C mitigated her losses by securing new employment from 31 October 2023. Damages awarded: one month's net pay (£2,062.89).
C notified R2 (acting for R1) of her pregnancy at end of August 2023. Shortly thereafter, R2's communications and eventual dismissal on 22 September occurred. C had been praised for her performance and considered for directorship before disclosure. The tribunal found C's dismissal was unfavourable treatment in the protected period because of her pregnancy under s.18 Equality Act 2010. R2 did not respond to C's assertion that pregnancy influenced the decision. The respondents did not attend or adduce evidence to show the dismissal was in no sense because of pregnancy. The burden shifted and R1/R2 failed to discharge it. R2 was found personally liable under s.110 EA as he acted as agent for R1 with authority.
Facts
C was employed by R1 as HR Executive from 28 February 2023 on £32,000 per annum. She passed probation and was praised for her performance, including work on securing care agency certification. In late August 2023 she notified R2 (R1's manager and majority shareholder) of her pregnancy. Shortly after, R2 sent ambiguous emails about redundancies due to financial difficulties. C was not paid for August or September 2023. On 22 September 2023, R2 requested return of her office key via WhatsApp and responded with laughing emojis when she said she'd wait for new management to contact her. C understood this as dismissal. Neither respondent attended the final hearing.
Decision
The tribunal found C was dismissed on 22 September 2023 based on the cumulative effect of R2's communications, particularly the key request and mocking emojis. R1 breached contract by failing to give one month's notice and made unauthorised deductions from wages (unpaid salary and holiday pay). The tribunal found C's dismissal was unfavourable treatment because of her pregnancy under s.18 EA. The burden shifted to respondents who failed to prove the dismissal was unconnected to pregnancy. R2 was personally liable under s.110 EA as R1's agent. Awards totalled £21,681.99 including injury to feelings (lower Vento band), financial losses, and interest.
Practical note
Where dismissal follows shortly after pregnancy notification, and the employer fails to attend tribunal or provide non-discriminatory explanation, pregnancy discrimination will be found even in context of genuine redundancy situation affecting other staff.
Award breakdown
Vento band: lower
Award equivalent: 35.2 weeks' gross pay
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8000512/2023
- Decision date
- 6 June 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- education
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Role
- HR Executive
- Salary band
- £30,000–£40,000
- Service
- 7 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No