Gita Karavadra v B.J. Cheese Packaging Limited — 2019

The tribunal found that the claimant was employed by B.J. Cheese Packaging Limited as an administrative assistant from 29 January 2018 until 22 August 2018. It preferred the claimant's evidence to that of Mr Jhinjer, found Mr Jhinjer unreliable under cross-examination, and noted that Mr Bob Jhinjer did not attend to give evidence. The tribunal also found that the claimant had told the respondent about IVF treatment and later about her pregnancy, and that the P45 was sent on 6 September 2018 with a leaving date of 13 July 2018, which the tribunal found had been inserted deliberately wrongly.

On liability, the tribunal held that the effective date of termination was 22 August 2018, when Mr Bob Jhinjer told the claimant that the respondent did not want her to return to work. Applying section 99 ERA 1996, Regulation 20 of the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999, section 18 Equality Act 2010, Gisda Cyf v Barrett, Ramdoolar v Bycity Limited and Efobi v Royal Mail, it found that the dismissal was automatically unfair and was discriminatory because pregnancy was the principal reason for dismissal. It rejected the respondent's case that the claimant had simply failed to return after holiday. It also found that the claimant was entitled to one week's notice under section 86 ERA 1996.

The tribunal upheld the non-payment of wages claim and awarded notice pay, but dismissed the holiday pay claim because the claimant had not proved the amount of holiday due and the evidence was insufficient to calculate it. It assessed injury to feelings for the pregnancy discrimination at £8,500, described it as falling within the lower Vento band, and added interest and a Simmons v Castle uplift. It also applied a 10% ACAS uplift. The remedy table listed basic award, loss of earnings, statutory maternity pay, loss of statutory rights, loss of wages, notice pay, injury to feelings, and the ACAS uplift, with a stated total award of £21,081.14; the table also listed a separate £348.47 loss-of-wages item, but the stated total matches the other listed figures without that amount.