In person For the v Mr T Welch — 2021

The Claimant was employed from 4 January 2016 as Legal Project Manager on a salary of £40,000. The tribunal found that her role was broader than a purely legal post and included legal project management, administration, liaison with lawyers and agents, and work across the Second Respondent's business and personal affairs. She went on maternity leave on 1 March 2017 and had sought contact during leave about vacancies and company information, but when she emailed on 14 February 2018 saying she would return on 1 March 2018, the Respondents reacted as though her job had gone, without a proper earlier assessment of what work she had done or what had been absorbed by others.

The tribunal found that the meetings on 26 February and 13 March 2018 were not a genuine consultation process. The Second Respondent told the Claimant there was very little work, that the business was closing or winding down, and that she should look for another job; the tribunal held that her role had been pre-judged as redundant before any proper selection analysis was carried out. It also found that the Claimant was not given a proper handover or access to her work folders when she returned, which prevented her from carrying out the audit task she had been asked to do. The grievance and appeal were not handled fairly: Ms Stenina investigated complaints that included criticism of her own conduct and the Second Respondent's, and the tribunal considered the appeal process was not an independent review.

On ordinary unfair dismissal, the tribunal accepted that by summer 2018 there was a genuine redundancy situation because the Russian litigation was ending, Uniwheel was being wound down after CB resigned, and the amount of work had reduced. However, it held that the dismissal was still unfair under section 98(4) ERA 1996 because the earlier consultation, selection and grievance process had been unreasonable. The tribunal assessed the chance that the Claimant would have kept her job, or obtained and accepted an alternative role, at 25% if a proper process had been followed.

On maternity and pregnancy discrimination, the tribunal held that the Claimant was unfavourably treated when she was told there was no job for her on return, when the work folders were not restored to her laptop, and when she was told to look for another job and leave. It found that those matters were because she had taken maternity leave and that the same findings also succeeded as direct sex discrimination. By contrast, the tribunal rejected the claims about preserving her role during leave, the grievance and appeal handling, causing sickness absence, and the dismissal itself. The harassment claim failed because the alleged breastfeeding and hormones remark was not proved, and the pressure around resignation and redundancy did not meet the statutory test. No remedy was determined at this hearing; the tribunal directed a later remedy hearing.