Ms K Moss (Counsel) For the v Mr P. Bownes (representative) — 2023

Miss K McKinnell worked for Birmingham Metropolitan College from May 2012 until her dismissal on 25 May 2021. She went on maternity leave on 21 March 2020. The tribunal found that the claimant’s Community Coordinator role did not become redundant in August 2020, as she argued, but only in January 2021 when the third national lockdown meant the college could no longer expect the role to continue in its преж-maternity form on her return. It also found that the work carried out by Ms McLauchlin for NHS teaching from August 2020 was not a new vacancy; it was hours allocated to an existing lecturer role.

The tribunal rejected the claimant’s discrimination and detriment allegations. It found no unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy or maternity, no direct sex discrimination, and no evidence that the claimant was discouraged from making a flexible-working request. It accepted that KIT-day arrangements were unsatisfactory, but held that this was explained by the COVID-19 lockdown context rather than by pregnancy or maternity. The tribunal also found that the claimant had been warned of the redundancy situation when it became apparent, that Regulation 10 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999 was not engaged before January 2021, and that no suitable alternative vacancy was shown on the evidence.

On dismissal, the tribunal held that redundancy was the reason for the dismissal and that the automatic unfair dismissal allegations under s.99 ERA 1996 and Reg.20 MAPLE Regs 1999 failed. However, it upheld the ordinary unfair dismissal claim under s.94 and s.98 ERA 1996. The reason was procedural: consultation was found to have been inadequate, the respondent did not sufficiently explain how the redundancy situation had arisen during the claimant’s absence, and it did not properly consider whether the claimant should have been pooled on a fractional-time basis in light of her intended 0.7 FTE return.

The holiday pay claim was dismissed because the respondent was entitled to require the claimant to take accrued leave during notice and the tribunal found no outstanding entitlement had been proved. The separate claim relating to KIT days / unpaid wages or breach of contract was also dismissed for lack of evidence. Remedy was left to a separate hearing listed for 28 February 2023, so no award figure was determined in this judgment.