Ms Yuliia Khimicheva v Key Promotions (UK) Ltd — 2021

Ms Khimicheva began work for Key Promotions (UK) Ltd on 13 March 2019 as a magazine finisher and was subject to a 12-week probationary period. The tribunal found the respondent's records were inadequate: there was no separate record of a probationary review, no record of any decision to extend probation, and no written notice to the claimant that probation had been extended or that dismissal was at risk. Although the tribunal accepted that the claimant's performance was poor and that Mrs Edwards gave verbal feedback about improvement, it found the claimant was not warned in writing that failure to improve might lead to dismissal.

The tribunal found that the claimant notified the respondent of her pregnancy by 16 July 2019 at the latest, and probably earlier. A risk assessment was carried out on 16 July 2019, but the tribunal considered the support recorded there to be inadequate. It found that the claimant was dismissed on 26 July 2019, with one week's notice to 2 August 2019, and that the dismissal letter relied on production and attendance. The tribunal accepted that performance played some part, but held that the principal reason for dismissal was the claimant's more recent absences, including absences from 25 June 2019 and during the weeks beginning 15 July and 22 July 2019.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal held that those absences were related to the claimant's pregnancy and pregnancy-related illness, so the dismissal was automatically unfair under s.99 ERA 1996 and reg. 20 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999. On the discrimination claim, the tribunal held that the dismissal amounted to unfavourable treatment because of illness suffered as a result of pregnancy within s.18 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal also said that, had it been considering ordinary unfair dismissal, the procedure fell far short of the ACAS Code and Guidance. No remedy figures are recorded in this judgment.