Miss M Georgiev v Hanover Insolvency Limited — 2020

The claimant, Miss M Georgiev, started work for Hanover Insolvency Limited on 9 July 2018 as an IVA drafting administrator. In September 2018 she told managers that she was pregnant and was experiencing morning sickness, dizziness and related sickness absence. The tribunal preferred her account of the key meeting on 8 October 2018 and found that Daniel Morris told her she was dismissed because of her absences, then confirmed the dismissal after she explained that the absences were pregnancy-related. It rejected the respondent's case that she had agreed to leave employment and work from home on a self-employed basis.

On that finding, the tribunal held that the unfair dismissal complaint under section 99 ERA 1996 was well founded because the dismissal was connected with pregnancy-related absence. It also held that the section 18 Equality Act 2010 complaint was well founded because the claimant was treated unfavourably by dismissal because of illness suffered as a result of pregnancy. The tribunal rejected the respondent's reliance on Patel v Folkestone Nursing Home Ltd and Salmon v Castlebeck Care (Teesdale) Ltd, holding that those authorities did not apply where there was no contractual right of appeal and, in any event, the respondent's correspondence was not a true appeal process.

The tribunal also found a breach of contract. It held that Daniel Morris told the claimant she would be given 2 weeks' notice, which varied the notice position, and that the respondent breached that term by dismissing her without notice. The holiday pay complaint failed because the claimant had already been paid to 10 October 2018, which matched the 2 days' accrued leave. The refer-a-friend claim and the variation-request claim also failed because the claimant did not prove that the relevant scheme conditions were satisfied. The overtime wages complaint was withdrawn.

By consent, the tribunal declared that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from wages in respect of drafted cases and ordered payment of £120. The tribunal stated that remedy for the other successful complaints would be determined at a later remedy hearing listed for 2 to 3 September 2020.