Ms S Earl v Castleford Bowling Club Limited AT A HEARING — 2021

The tribunal held that the claimant's automatically unfair dismissal claim under regulation 20 of the Maternity & Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999 was not well-founded, but her ordinary unfair dismissal claim for a reason related to conduct succeeded. It ordered a basic award of £728, based on two years' continuous employment between ages 22 and 41, and said it would not be just and equitable to reduce that award under section 122(2) ERA 1996 for any as yet unparticularised conduct before dismissal. Any further compensation for unfair dismissal, including loss of earnings, employer pension contributions and the stated £400 for loss of statutory rights, was left to a remedy hearing. The tribunal also said any compensatory award would be increased by 20% for the respondent's unreasonable failure to comply with the ACAS disciplinary and grievance code and then reduced by 90% because it assessed a 90% probability that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed for declaring more hours than were actually worked, or other misconduct relating to wage figures, had a proper disciplinary process been followed. It stated that any compensatory award was capped at 52 weeks' pay under section 124 ERA 1996.

On discrimination, the tribunal found that the claimant was treated unfavourably because of pregnancy contrary to section 18 Equality Act 2010 when, under a rota devised on 13 May 2019, she was required to work alone and the respondent had not carried out or reviewed a suitable and sufficient general risk assessment under regulations 3 and 16 of the Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1999. It dismissed all other pregnancy or maternity discrimination complaints and the complaints of detriment under section 47C ERA 1996. Compensation for injury to feelings and any interest on that award were left to be assessed at a remedy hearing if not agreed.

The post-employment victimisation claim was dismissed because the claimant had not proved the protected act alleged and, in any event, exclusion from the club premises was found to be because of her behaviour on 9 June 2019 rather than because of any protected act. On holiday pay, the tribunal held she was not entitled to carry forward untaken leave for the partial year ending 31 March 2019, but for the leave year from 1 April 2019 to termination on 26 May 2019 she had 10.4 hours of accrued but untaken leave unpaid, worth £94.64. It also ordered £728 under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 because the respondent had not provided a written statement of terms and conditions when proceedings began.