Mr K Harris, counsel For the v Respondent — 2022

The respondent conceded that the claimant had not been paid the correct notice pay and holiday pay on termination, and judgment was entered on the breach of contract and unlawful deduction from wages claims. The claimant had been employed since 2012, went on maternity leave in January 2019, and repeatedly sought clarity about returning to work, taking accrued holiday, and the possibility of part-time or remote work. After the business changed ownership, communications about her return were channelled through Ms Virgolin, Mr Ribeiro and Mr Marchesani, and the respondent later offered her a Southwark customer service role at £9 per hour and reduced hours rather than her former full-time role at £11 per hour.

The tribunal found that there was no reliable evidence of a redundancy situation. It did not accept that the claimant's role had materially changed, or that the need for the work had diminished: Ms Matuszewska, who covered the role during maternity leave, remained in post, there was no contemporaneous documentation showing a fair selection or consultation process, and there was no reliable report from the CRM system showing a downturn in Polish work. The tribunal found the respondent's explanation for redundancy was not supported by the evidence, and concluded that the principal reason for dismissal was that the claimant was on maternity leave. It also found there was no evidence that it was not reasonably practicable to return her to her old role.

On that basis, the tribunal upheld unfair dismissal under sections 94, 99 and 98(4) ERA 1996, and direct maternity discrimination and maternity detriment claims in relation to not allowing the claimant to return to her role, offering reduced pay and hours, and dismissing her. The complaints about withdrawing the Southwark offer and about not dealing with the grievances were not upheld under the maternity discrimination and detriment claims. The tribunal found the claimant's grievances of 29 January 2020 and 17 February 2020 were protected acts, and upheld victimisation only in respect of dismissing her and withdrawing the Southwark offer.

The tribunal did not determine compensation in this judgment and listed a remedy hearing for 24 January 2022. For Polkey purposes, it found there was no realistic chance that the claimant's employment would have lawfully ended before about June or July 2021, and that she would have remained employed until at least the summer of 2021 if fairly treated.