Ms L Bell, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2018

Dr Emma Lahert had worked for Proteome Sciences since 2007 and by 2018 was the company Product Manager reporting directly to Dr Jeremy Haigh. The tribunal found the First Respondent was in a very difficult financial position and that, by September 2018, the board was considering a cost-reduction plan of about £870,000, including staff-cost savings of £470,000, with a proposal to move project management work to Frankfurt and make Dr Lahert redundant, producing an estimated annual saving of £45,000.

The tribunal accepted that Dr Haigh knew about Dr Lahert's miscarriage in 2016 and that she had undergone IVF in 2017, but found he did not know in mid-2018 that she was still undergoing IVF. It found that no one involved in the redundancy decision knew of her pregnancy when she was placed at risk in October 2018, and that Dr Haigh first learned of the pregnancy at the second consultation meeting on 17 October 2018. The section 1 ERA claim and the indirect discrimination claim were both withdrawn during the hearing and were dismissed upon withdrawal.

On TUPE, the tribunal applied the service provision change authorities it cited, including Metropolitan Resources, Johnson Controls and Huke, and found there was no relevant transfer. It held that after Dr Lahert left there was no dedicated project manager, centralised coordination of project management had ceased, PRINCE2 was no longer used, some tasks were no longer performed at all, and the remaining work was fragmented across a number of employees in London and Frankfurt. As a result, the TUPE consultation and TUPE dismissal claims were dismissed.

On ordinary unfair dismissal, the tribunal found redundancy within section 139 ERA 1996 was established and that the principal reason for dismissal was the urgent need for cost savings. It found the consultation process fell within the range of reasonable responses, that there were no suitable alternative vacancies, and that it was reasonable to use a pool of one because the claimant was the only Project Manager and the Project Leader roles were not materially similar to her role. The tribunal also found that, even if it had needed to do so, the redundancy decision would have been within the range of reasonable responses under the approach in J Sainsbury v Hitt.

The detriment claim under section 47C ERA and regulation 19 MPL failed because the pregnancy was not known when she was placed at risk, she was the only Project Manager, and the tribunal did not accept that the solicitor's letter or grievance timing created a detriment. The direct discrimination claim failed because the tribunal found the redundancy process was driven by urgent cost saving before pregnancy was known, and it said it was in a position to make positive findings on the evidence without resolving the burden of proof separately, referring to Hewage, Madarassy, Nagarajan and Ayodele. The harassment claim failed because the conduct was unwanted but not related to gender or pregnancy and was not objectively sufficiently serious, and the victimisation claim failed because the tribunal accepted the solicitor's letter of 19 October 2018 was a protected act but found the termination letter would have been sent in the same form and at the same time regardless.