Mr. Cottam, Lay representative v Respondent — 2021

The tribunal dismissed the claim against Mrs P Corbett from the proceedings for jurisdiction reasons, referring to Pryce v Baxter Storey Limited. It recorded that the claimant withdrew the arrears of pay and victimisation complaints, which were dismissed upon withdrawal. The respondent argued that several allegations were out of time, but the tribunal said it did not need to determine limitation because none of the allegations succeeded.

The tribunal found that the claimant and Mrs Corbett had enjoyed a good working relationship before maternity leave and that Mrs Corbett had supported the claimant during pregnancy and leave. After the COVID closures, the business changed: stock ordering moved to Phorest, monthly stock takes were no longer needed, and Mrs Corbett took a more hands-on role. On the disputed events after the claimant returned to work, the tribunal preferred the respondent's evidence and found that the claimant was welcomed to attend the 10 July 2020 meeting once she learned of it, was not directed to arrive late, and was not excluded or humiliated as alleged.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found a genuine redundancy because the need for a manager had diminished. It accepted that by January 2021 Mrs Corbett had decided the manager role was no longer required, offered the claimant a therapist role at £11.30 per hour, and held a consultation meeting on 19 January 2021. The tribunal held that the consultation was short but adequate for a small business, that a longer consultation would not have changed the result, and that the therapist role was suitable alternative employment.

On the sex and maternity discrimination claims, the tribunal held that none of the pleaded acts amounted to less favourable or unfavourable treatment because of sex or maternity leave. It found no prima facie case under sections 13 and 18 of the Equality Act 2010 and rejected the case that the claimant had been excluded, sidelined, or treated adversely because she had taken maternity leave. On notice pay, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had a seven-week contractual notice entitlement but held that she was not entitled to any further notice pay because she was on sick leave and receiving statutory sick pay during the notice period.