Anna Munkevics v Echo Personnel Ltd — 2025

The claimant started work for Echo Personnel Ltd on 9 March 2021 as a Trainee Recruitment Consultant. After becoming pregnant in September 2021 and taking maternity leave from 1 May 2022 to 30 April 2023, the tribunal found that she had been promised a phased return on reduced hours and that Darren Evans had been recruited on like work at an annual salary of £25,000. The tribunal found that on 3 April 2023 the respondent revoked the agreed reduced-hours return, and that this was unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy and maternity. It also found that on 27 March 2023 the claimant was told only that the Hereford office was closed, without being told about the mobile recruitment van, and that this too was pregnancy and maternity discrimination.

The tribunal upheld constructive unfair dismissal because the claimant resigned on 18 April 2023 in response to the revocation of the reduced-hours agreement. It found that the revocation was a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence and that the claimant had not affirmed the contract before resigning. The same resignation was also held to be automatically unfair dismissal under s99 ERA 1996 because it was connected with pregnancy, childbirth and maternity pay. The separate notice-pay claim succeeded as breach of contract for the period 1 to 16 May 2023, with the remedy summary labelling that head as wrongful dismissal damages.

On equal pay, the tribunal accepted that the claimant and Darren Evans were doing like work and rejected any valid material factor defence. It therefore modified the remuneration term in the claimant's contract so that, from 17 April 2022, her salary should have been £25,000 per year. The remedy calculation used that salary figure and net weekly pay of £397.48 when assessing loss, including the pay differences during the period before maternity leave, the compulsory maternity period, the notice period, and associated bonus and pension elements.

The claim for breach of the maternity equality clause succeeded only in part. The tribunal found that the claimant had been paid her bonus during April and May 2022, so the claim failed for the period before maternity leave and during compulsory maternity leave, but it succeeded for the bonus due after her return from maternity leave and through the notice period, provisionally assessed at £44.17 per week. The unauthorised deductions claim was dismissed because the tribunal treated it as a catch-all covered by the other claims, and the holiday pay claim failed because the claimant had accepted an offer to take accrued holiday to extend her income after statutory maternity pay ended.

At remedy, the tribunal assessed total losses at £25,109.92. The award comprised a basic award of £961.54, damages for wrongful dismissal of £794.96, a compensatory award after adjustments of £9,575.45, and non-financial loss of £13,777.97, made up of £12,000 injury to feelings plus £1,777.97 interest. The tribunal applied no Polkey deduction and added 10% for failure to follow statutory procedures. It recorded a prescribed element of £9,579.27 and a balance of £15,530.65.