In Person For v Respondent — 2019

The claimant worked as a receptionist from March 2016 until she resigned on 16 May 2018. The tribunal preferred Mrs Finnegan's evidence where there was conflict, found that the claimant's core hours were three five-hour shifts per week rather than a fixed 16 hours, and accepted that the reduction in hours from February 2017 occurred in the context of Mr Finnegan's illness and death, Mrs Finnegan's grief and uncertainty about the business, and the taking on of additional staff. It also accepted that Mrs Finnegan did not understand until June 2017 that the claimant's hours affected entitlement to Statutory Maternity Pay.

The pregnancy and maternity discrimination claim and the section 47C ERA detriment claim both failed. The tribunal held that the reduction in hours between February and July 2017 was not unfavourable or detrimental treatment and was not because of pregnancy or maternity; it was explained by the business and personal circumstances the tribunal accepted. It also held that the 2 February 2018 meeting about the claimant's return was a discussion of options rather than an ultimatum: the proposed later closing time was described as a trial, an alternative rota was suggested when the claimant said she could not work until 8pm three times a week, and nothing was imposed on her. The tribunal held that, under sections 18 and 136 Equality Act 2010 and the relevant maternity leave provisions, the claimant had not established facts from which discrimination could properly be inferred.

The constructive dismissal and unfair dismissal claims were also dismissed. The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that her contract required 16 hours per week, found no repudiatory breach in the reduction of hours or in the February 2018 discussions, and held that she had not resigned in response to any fundamental breach. It further found that, after the February 2018 meeting, the claimant requested an extension of maternity leave, which was inconsistent with treating the contract as ended, and that she resigned only later for other reasons identified in the evidence. The tribunal therefore concluded that she was not dismissed by the respondent and that the automatic unfair dismissal argument under Regulation 20 of the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999 also failed.