Ms E Kennedy v Rowan International Limited — 2020

Ms Kennedy was employed from 7 May 2019 as Export Senior National Account Manager on a home-based contract that also required attendance at head office as requested. She had three children, lived in Weston-Super-Mare, and the tribunal accepted that she was breastfeeding when she started work. After an initial period working two days a week in the office, the respondent told her in June 2019 that she would need to spend about four days a week in the office for a short induction period so that she could complete induction and integrate into the business. Her employment was terminated with immediate effect on 24 June 2019 when she said she could not meet that requirement.

On breach of contract, the tribunal held that the disciplinary procedure in the staff handbook was contractual because the employment contract expressly referred to it, but the separate probationary formal-meeting procedure was not contractual. The dismissal was not disciplinary in nature: the claimant was dismissed because she could not work the required office pattern during the induction period, not because of a disciplinary matter. The contractual process therefore was not engaged for the dismissal.

The claim under s10 Employment Relations Act 1999 also failed. The tribunal found that the 24 June 2019 meeting was not a disciplinary or grievance hearing, and it heard no evidence that the claimant had requested to be accompanied. The indirect sex discrimination claim under s19 Equality Act 2010 failed despite the tribunal finding that a requirement to work four days a week in the office during a temporary induction period put women at a particular disadvantage, and that the claimant herself was disadvantaged because her childcare arrangements meant she could not be away from home for that pattern. The tribunal accepted the respondent's aim was to complete induction and fully integrate a new manager into the business, and held that the temporary requirement was a proportionate means of achieving that legitimate aim.

The direct sex discrimination claim also failed. The tribunal held that s13(7) Equality Act 2010 prevented a direct discrimination claim based on breastfeeding in a work case. In any event, it preferred the evidence of Ms Humphrys that the claimant was offered private rooms or her office for expressing milk and declined those options, so it did not accept that inadequate provision had been made. As all claims failed, the listed remedy hearing did not proceed.