Miss M Spratt v Global Baggage Solutions Limited (in voluntary liquidation Arrangement) — 2021

Miss Spratt’s complaint arose from a long-running pension administration problem, later maternity pay issues, and the respondent’s refusal of her return-to-work request after maternity leave. The tribunal found that the pension contribution records had been reversed when the scheme moved to ReAssure, that the respondent did communicate with ReAssure, and that the delay in correction was largely attributable to ReAssure rather than to any deliberate act by the respondent. It rejected the allegation that the pay errors were made to punish Miss Spratt, and it found that the respondent’s handling of her grievance was imperfect but not conduct likely to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence.

On the return-to-work proposals, Miss Spratt sought fixed hours, 8.00am to 2.00pm on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, linked to childcare and breastfeeding. The tribunal accepted that the respondent’s Manchester operation depended on a strict rotating rota and that supervisor cover had to fit the busy 24/7 service pattern, especially the early-morning peak. It found that the proposed hours would not fit within that system without creating a bespoke role, and that the respondent’s aims in maintaining its rota, service levels and staffing flexibility were legitimate. Applying the proportionality exercise for indirect discrimination, it held that the PCPs were justified and distinguished MacFarlane v easyJet on the facts.

The pregnancy and maternity discrimination claim failed for the same factual reason: the tribunal found that the refusal of the flexible working request was because the proposed hours were incompatible with the business rota, not because Miss Spratt was pregnant or on maternity leave. On constructive unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that the pension issue, the grievance handling, and the maternity pay overpayment did not amount to repudiatory breaches. It also found that the refusal of the flexible working request was not a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, and in any event Miss Spratt resigned only in response to that refusal. The claim was therefore dismissed in full.