Ms S Dutkowska v Sumi Agro Europe Limited — 2020

Ms Dutkowska brought claims arising from her return from maternity leave on 15 May 2017 and later requests for accrued leave and flexible working. Two earlier complaints were disposed of before the merits hearing: the direct discrimination complaint based on compulsory maternity leave was withdrawn on 5 April 2018, and indirect sex discrimination was struck out the same day. After hearing evidence in June and July 2019, the tribunal dismissed all remaining claims.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant returned to a changed working environment under Mrs Lennon, that the RM function had become busier because of increased requirements from Tokyo, and that the respondent had a poor understanding of KIT days and had failed to facilitate the claimant's repeated attempts to arrange them until January 2017. It also accepted that the claimant's personal internet use was real and regularly occurred during working hours, and that Mrs Lennon had genuine concerns about productivity and workload. The tribunal found that most of the complained-of acts were reasonable management steps or did not amount to detriment, including setting objectives at the first meeting, declining a second screen as unnecessary, directing SAU and SAROM work, monitoring internet use, and referring to the claimant's notice period and outstanding work in July 2017.

The tribunal rejected the direct maternity discrimination, harassment related to sex, and direct sex discrimination claims because it found no causal link to maternity leave or sex and no conduct that met the section 26 EQA test. It also rejected the flexible working detriment complaint, finding that the July 2017 flexible working and part-time requests were refused for operational reasons, including the need for two full-time RM staff, coverage of the team, and concerns about productivity, rather than because the claimant had made the request. The constructive dismissal claim failed because there was no repudiatory breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, and the unfair dismissal complaint failed with it. No monetary award was made.