Miss N Carr v Huntress Search Limited and 1 other — 2023

Miss Carr worked for the Right Fuel Card Company and took extra weekend work through Huntress as a receptionist at JCT600 in May 2021. She told the agency she was pregnant at the end of July 2021 and asked it to let the garage know so that any health and safety steps could be taken. The tribunal heard from the claimant, Miss Pierce for the agency, and several JCT600 witnesses, and found on the documentary evidence that the agency sent an email on 28 July 2021 at 11.25 saying she was pregnant and due in December, with later metadata, inbox screenshots and the email trail supporting that finding.

The claim against Huntress that the assignment had been terminated because of pregnancy was withdrawn during the hearing once the claimant accepted that Mr Filer at JCT600 had made the decision. The remaining agency allegation, that Huntress failed to notify the garage of the pregnancy, was held to be out of time under s.123 EqA 2010 and not within a just and equitable period; the tribunal said that even if time had been extended, it would still have failed because the email had in fact been sent. The separate claim under Regulation 13 of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 also failed: the tribunal found the directly employed receptionists were comparable workers, the permanent vacancy was advertised on the garage's website on 29 June 2021 and again on 1 September 2021, and the claimant was told about it but did not want weekday work.

The allegation that Mr Miller and Mr Cuthbertson told the claimant 'you look like you're about to drop' was rejected because the tribunal preferred their evidence that no such comments were made. The tribunal also rejected the allegation that JCT600 ended the assignment because of pregnancy or morning-sickness-related lateness. It found that Mr Filer did not know the claimant was pregnant, or that she had been late because of morning sickness, when he decided to end the assignment, and that the reason was reports that her performance had become seriously unsatisfactory, including mobile-phone use, poor customer service and the EH complaint. After dismissing the substantive claims, the tribunal made costs and preparation-time orders reduced for the claimant's ability to pay: £1,050 to Huntress for preparation time, £409.04 for Miss Pierce's expenses, and £4,006 to JCT600.