In person For the v Respondent — 2022

The tribunal heard from the claimant, Ms Bi and Ms Zahuruddin, and from Dr Akbar and Mr Akbar for the respondents. It found the claimant, Ms Bi and Ms Zahuruddin broadly credible, but found the evidence of Dr Akbar and Mr Akbar fundamentally lacking in credibility. It accepted that Dr Akbar remained closely involved in the company's day-to-day management despite his 2017 disqualification, and that he was driving the relevant decisions.

The claimant gave notice of pregnancy on 12 February 2019 and went on maternity leave on 14 May 2019. The tribunal found that Dr Akbar's attitude changed after that notice. It accepted that when she returned from maternity leave on 11 May 2020, her HR duties were removed and she was required instead to do order processing and housekeeping. That change was found to be because of her pregnancy and maternity leave.

On the anonymous canteen allegation, the tribunal found that the claimant had taken food home only two or three times and that she had Mr Karim's permission on each occasion. It held that Dr Akbar directed the investigation, pressed for meetings during the claimant's pregnancy-related sickness absence and maternity leave, and later instructed a verbal warning without any disciplinary hearing. The claimant's appeal was delayed for more than six months and was ultimately answered only by saying that the warning had expired, which did not address her complaint.

The tribunal upheld unfair dismissal because the cumulative conduct, and in particular the handling of the theft allegation, the removal of HR duties, unpaid overtime and discouragement of annual leave, amounted to a fundamental breach of trust and confidence. It also upheld pregnancy/maternity discrimination, including discriminatory dismissal, because part of the constructive breach was the removal of her duties after maternity leave. Direct sex discrimination failed because the tribunal found the challenged conduct fell within s.18 Equality Act 2010 and could not also be treated as s.13 sex discrimination.

The harassment claim succeeded only in relation to the April and August 2019 letters inviting investigation meetings while the claimant was on pregnancy-related sickness absence and maternity leave; the tribunal found that conduct related to sex and was intended to create a hostile or intimidating environment. The separate 'not presentable' allegation was held to be out of time, and the remaining harassment allegations were dismissed as not relating to sex. The annual leave complaint failed because the February 2021 request did not satisfy the notice requirement under regulation 15, although the tribunal found the respondent generally discouraged leave; the overtime claim succeeded on the basis of the claimant's calculation of 205 extra hours since May 2020, but the precise sum was left to the remedy hearing and no final award was made in this judgment.