Mrs D Pritchard v Scot Group Ltd t/a Thrifty Car Rental — 2020

Mrs Pritchard had worked for Scot Group Ltd since 1999 and was promoted to Cardiff Branch Manager in 2008. After she told the respondent she was pregnant in October 2017, a maternity risk assessment identified issues with her chair, the LED lighting and work-related stress, and parking at the Cardiff branch was also recognised as a continuing operational problem. The claimant later went off sick, then commenced maternity leave on 16 April 2018. She returned to work on 11 March 2019 on a three-day working pattern following a flexible working request, but she soon said that the branch was short-staffed and that she lacked sufficient managerial support on her non-working days. The tribunal also noted that the respondent later dealt with her grievance, accepted some shortcomings, and recommended or implemented measures including staffing review, acting manager cover and formal return-to-work support.

The s.18 pregnancy and maternity discrimination claim was dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the tribunal held that the protected period ended at the latest on 10 March 2019 and that the complaints were out of time. It declined to extend time on the just and equitable basis, placing weight on the claimant's evidence that she did not intend to bring a claim when she returned to work. In any event, the tribunal found that the claimant had not proved that the matters relied on were because of pregnancy or maternity leave: the contact during sick leave, the parking and lighting issues, the weather-related branch closure, and the other alleged failures were not shown to have the necessary causal connection to pregnancy or maternity.

The s.19 indirect sex discrimination claim was also found to be out of time, the last act complained of being 21 June 2019, and the tribunal declined to extend time because there was an unexplained delay after the grievance appeal outcome. In any event, the tribunal held that the pleaded PCP of inadequate support for part-time or flexible working branch managers was not made out on the evidence and that there was no sufficient basis for concluding that women were placed at the alleged disadvantage. The tribunal therefore dismissed the indirect discrimination claim even if it had had jurisdiction to hear it.

The constructive unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims were dismissed because the matters relied on, individually or cumulatively, did not amount to a fundamental breach of trust and confidence. The tribunal found that the pre-maternity staffing, parking, lighting and weather-related matters did not meet the threshold for repudiatory breach, and that when the claimant returned part-time she had originally presented the role as capable of being done with existing staff support. Although she later said that this was not workable, the tribunal found that the respondent responded to her concerns through recruitment help, support from Emma and later grievance steps, and that the grievance process and the October 2019 meeting were not themselves repudiatory breaches or a valid last straw. The unlawful deduction claim failed because the claimant was not contractually entitled to overtime on the facts found and the respondent was entitled to pro-rate benefits after the move to part-time hours.