In person For the v Respondent — 2022

The claimant started work on 1 April 2019 as a fixed-term Contract Manager on the TXGB project. The tribunal found that, immediately before her maternity leave, the predominant part of her work was TXGB contract management. It also held that taking annual leave before maternity leave did not remove her right under regulation 18 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999 to return to the same job.

While the claimant was on ordinary maternity leave, the 1st respondent redistributed significant elements of her work to other staff and by October 2020 had decided that those staff would keep the work. A new Senior Contracts and Supplier Relationship Manager role was also developed. The tribunal treated this as a reorganisation that created at least a potential redundancy situation, but not an actual redundancy, because the TXGB work continued in reorganised form.

The claimant was not told during maternity leave that her duties had been permanently reallocated. The tribunal found that the failure to consult her was because she was on maternity leave, and that the decision to change her role was made without consultation. It held that the 1st respondent breached regulation 18 MPL Regulations and that the dismissal on 17 May 2021 was automatically unfair because it was connected with her taking ordinary maternity leave.

On pregnancy and maternity discrimination under section 18 of the Equality Act 2010, the tribunal upheld complaints about the respondent treating her role as redundant while she was on maternity leave, failing to apply a selection process, failing to inform and consult her, waiting until the end of the protected period before imposing changes, and changing her role and reporting line. It dismissed other allegations, including the pay-rise allegation, some grievance-handling complaints, and some allegations about misconduct and exclusion from Rainmaker contact.

The detriments claim under section 47C ERA 1996 succeeded in part on the same core failures to inform and consult and on the unilateral changes to the role, but not on the pay-rise issue. The victimisation claim failed because the tribunal found the treatment flowed from the role dispute and the respondent's mistaken legal analysis, not from the protected acts. The fixed-term employee claim and the written-reasons claim failed, all claims against Mr Johnson were dismissed, and no remedy was quantified in this judgment; a remedy hearing remained listed for 26 October 2022.