Ms Alison Roberts v Spandex UK Limited — 2020

Ms Roberts worked for Spandex UK Limited in a home-based field sales role and announced her pregnancy in January 2016. The tribunal found that the parties agreed a handover plan before maternity leave, and that as the handover progressed the claimant had less of her usual work. It rejected the allegation that she was isolated or excluded after announcing pregnancy, finding that the contemporaneous emails and text messages with Ms McGeown showed a friendly working relationship and that Mr Watson continued to seek her input.

Following the Brexit referendum, Mr Watson created a restructure with three new roles, including UK Aftermarket Field Sales Manager. The tribunal accepted that he considered the claimant and Ben Scammell against the requirements of the role, but found that Mr Scammell had materially greater hardware/software and supplier-relationship experience and that the Respondent's usual practice was not to advertise a role where there was an obvious candidate. On that basis the tribunal dismissed the complaints that the claimant should have been involved in a competitive process, told of the role earlier, or informed of the restructure before 3 August 2016.

The tribunal did, however, find that two later failures damaged trust and confidence. It held that the claimant was not told when the employee covering City Signs changed and was not told when the kicker commission element changed, even though she had asked to be kept informed of significant workplace developments. Those failures were held to amount to a repudiatory breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, and the claimant's resignation on 25 January 2017 was found to have been in response to that breach. For the same overall resignation, the tribunal also found automatic unfair dismissal under section 99 ERA 1996 because the principal reason for dismissal was connected with maternity leave.

Most of the pregnancy and maternity discrimination allegations under sections 18 and 13 Equality Act 2010 were dismissed. The tribunal found no discrimination in the handover/workload complaint, the anniversary and birthday complaints, the requirement to prepare for KIT-day training in the office, the non-notification of the E-Business Co-ordinator role, or the other communications relied on as discrimination. Where it found delays or omissions, it accepted non-discriminatory explanations or held that the reason was not pregnancy or maternity. It also recorded that the section 13 complaints were treated as pregnancy-related allegations said to fall outside the protected period, rather than as a separate comparator-based sex discrimination case.

Victimisation was upheld. The tribunal found that Ms Meredith's statement at the 10 February 2017 grievance meeting that Mr Scammell had a 'defined career path', and her later denial of that remark, were detriments caused by the claimant's protected grievance complaints. It further held that Mr Watson victimised the claimant by rejecting or failing to deal with certain grievance points and by stating that the Respondent had not acted unreasonably, and that Mr Jackson similarly victimised her on appeal by failing properly to consider or uphold key complaints, including the communication and kicker issues. No compensation was assessed in this judgment; the tribunal declined an ACAS uplift and made no financial penalty order, and it left remedy to be addressed separately if required.