Mrs R Chamas v Villa Di Geggiano (UK) Ltd — 2021

Mrs R Chamas worked for Villa Di Geggiano (UK) Ltd as a waitress and later Floor Supervisor. After maternity leave, her agreed return pattern was changed to weekday lunch shifts at 11.00 to 15.00 on a part-time basis, and the tribunal found that by January 2020 she was working under a variation that involved 3-4 lunch-time shifts a week rather than a fixed entitlement to five weekday shifts. The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that lunch-time trade was very light and that, in January 2020, the business no longer needed a dedicated employee for that role.

The pregnancy/maternity discrimination complaints were all dismissed. The tribunal found that the claimant did not prove her shifts had been reduced from 4-5 days to 2-3 days because of pregnancy, and it rejected her case that she had been required to sign a document confirming 3-4 shifts per week. It found that the 19 January cancellation was because there were no lunch diners, not because she was pregnant. It also found that the grievance process was not ignored: the claimant raised a grievance, was invited to meetings, did not attend them, and did not engage with the later invitation to say whether she wished to pursue the grievance. The complaint about postponing the redundancy consultation meeting and the later appeal delay also failed because the tribunal found the timing was driven by the directors' planned absence abroad rather than pregnancy or maternity leave.

The tribunal rejected the sex harassment complaint. It did not accept that Mr Conboy said 'Oh fuck' when told of the pregnancy. It found that the remarks 'selfish' and 'not a team player' were made in the context of a dispute about what had been agreed on hours and the claimant's demand for five weekday lunch shifts, and that those remarks were not related to sex. On dismissal, the tribunal held that the claimant's role was redundant, that redundancy was the sole reason for dismissal, and that the respondent had acted reasonably in the circumstances, including by warning her of redundancy risk, consulting, offering alternative work, and offering an appeal which she did not pursue. No monetary award was made because all claims were dismissed.