Ms A Banks v Lloyds Bank plc — 2023

The tribunal found that the claimant raised pregnancy-related health and safety concerns, including requests for a pregnancy risk assessment and a more supportive chair, and that these were not properly addressed. It found that some pregnancy-related absences were recorded or discussed in ways that caused the claimant concern, and that managers had differing or limited understanding of pregnancy risk assessments and related responsibilities.

The tribunal found that the claimant's grievance about pregnancy discrimination was not handled in accordance with the respondent's own process or the ACAS Code. It found that the grievance meeting was treated as an informal or mediation-style process despite the nature of the complaint, that there were no adequate records or written outcome, and that the claimant did not regard the grievance as resolved.

The tribunal concluded that the upheld acts formed part of an ongoing situation amounting to unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy or pregnancy-related illness. It dismissed the victimisation claim because it was not satisfied that the protected act was the reason for the later treatment.

For constructive dismissal, the tribunal found that the respondent's conduct had seriously damaged trust and confidence. The final straw was the claimant learning in August 2021, through her union representative, that the respondent did not indicate any intention to resolve her grievance before her return from maternity leave. The tribunal found that the claimant resigned in response, had not affirmed the contract, and was constructively automatically unfairly dismissed; it also found ordinary constructive unfair dismissal in the alternative.