Ms D Kalotra v Cisilion Limited and 1 other — 2022

The claimant was employed as an Accounts Manager from 19 September 2016 on a package of basic salary plus commission tied to targets, later moving to a standardised sales package. After she told the respondents she was pregnant on 30 May 2019, her role and package were revised to a basic salary of 50,000 pounds, OTE of 50,000 pounds and an annual target of 600,000 pounds, and she accepted the new terms by signing the letter on 26 June 2019.

On the pregnancy and maternity discrimination claim, the tribunal rejected the allegation that her commission rate had been reduced because of pregnancy. It found that the package change reflected the respondent's standardised sales structure and the increase in basic salary, not pregnancy. The tribunal did not accept the claimant's account of the alleged 16 September 2019 telephone call, did not find that the second respondent had tried to demote her to Business Development Manager, and found that the enquiries about performance management were driven by concerns about her performance rather than pregnancy or maternity.

The tribunal also rejected the complaints about commission and account allocation. It found that commission was not paid because the claimant had not reached the 50% threshold in the quota bearer scheme, not because she had taken maternity leave. It found that the disputes about Quanticate, Gateley and Petrofac were explained by account handling issues, with Petrofac being a prospect rather than a customer account. On time limits, the tribunal treated some allegations as part of a continuing state of affairs and allowed the earlier allegation to be considered on a just and equitable basis, but none of the discrimination allegations succeeded.

The section 47C ERA detriment claim failed for the same factual reasons. The tribunal held that the relevant conduct was not done for a prescribed maternity-related reason. It also held that one allegation in that claim was out of time and that the claimant could not rely on the extension arguments for that discrete matter.

The constructive dismissal claim was dismissed because the tribunal found no fundamental breach of contract and no breach of trust and confidence. The claimant resigned on 2 March 2020 and, in her resignation letter, said the decision was based on career progression. The tribunal held that the commission dispute and the handling of her return from maternity leave did not amount to conduct entitling her to resign without notice.

The equal pay claim was also dismissed. The tribunal found that Alex Bain was on the same package as the claimant, that Jamie Hopkins, Abinash Bangar and Alex Paul were on 60,000 pound packages, and that Richard Heath had a higher package because he was recruited as a big hitter with significant prior sales experience. Applying the material factor defence, the tribunal accepted that negotiated salary packages, experience and market forces explained the differences in pay. The deductions from wages claim was withdrawn and recorded as dismissed upon withdrawal.