Mr G Daley, lay representative For the v Respondent — 2021

Ms Nettle joined the respondent in 2016 and, after becoming pregnant in early 2019 and suffering hyperemesis gravidarum, was absent from work before returning on a phased basis in May 2019. The tribunal found that Occupational Health recommended project work, reduced hours and homeworking on her return, and that the respondent was also reorganising the business after the Fox acquisition and related restructuring. It accepted that she received support during her pregnancy and maternity leave, but also found that some information, including the organisational chart and later pay and bonus documentation, reached her later than colleagues.

On the pregnancy and maternity discrimination complaint, the tribunal accepted that several matters were unfavourable treatment, including the change in duties after her return, the inability to dial into some team meetings, the failure to show her the organisational chart, and the delay in providing some information about pay, bonus and family-friendly policies. However, it found that none of those matters was because of pregnancy or maternity. The changed duties were consistent with Occupational Health advice and the short time before maternity leave; the meeting arrangements applied to other absent employees too; the missing organisational chart and delayed documents were treated as oversights; and the respondent had not shown discriminatory reason in the lower 2.5% pay increase. The tribunal also found the bonus calculation was adjusted in her favour so that she received a bonus of over £9,000 rather than nothing.

The tribunal rejected the allegation that she was told she must accept a role or resign, and it found that there was no unfavourable treatment in the failure to consult her about the restructure, the absence of tailored career-development contact, or the later handling of the bonus scheme. On victimisation, the tribunal accepted that the grievance of March 2020 and the ET1 were protected acts, but it held that the alleged detriments were not caused by those acts. It found that the KIT day planning, the closure of company sick pay, the handling of GIP information, the solicitor's email, and Mr Thorley's approach to the grievance and sickness absence process were not victimisation. The only detriment it accepted in substance was the delay in referring the claimant to Occupational Health, but it found no evidential basis to link that delay to the protected acts. All claims were dismissed and no remedy was awarded.