Mr S Walker (solicitor) For the v Respondent — 2021

The claimant started work on 4 June 2018 as a part-time kennel cleaner and the effective date of termination was 15 October 2018. The tribunal found that she did not have two years' continuous service, so the ordinary unfair dismissal complaint failed under s.108 ERA 1996. It accepted that the respondent's business was affected by the new animal welfare licensing regime, but found that the decision to dismiss was not made until after the claimant told the respondent on 12 October 2018 that she was pregnant.

The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed primarily because of her pregnancy on 15 October 2018. It rejected the respondent's redundancy case as the operative reason for dismissal and also rejected the suggested health and safety concerns as a valid basis for the termination. On that basis, the tribunal upheld automatic unfair dismissal under s.99(3)(a) ERA 1996 and pregnancy discrimination under s.18(2) Equality Act 2010.

Because the pregnancy discrimination claim succeeded, the direct sex discrimination complaint did not proceed and was dismissed under s.18(7) Equality Act 2010. The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to provide itemised pay statements at the relevant time and made a declaration to that effect, and that it had failed to provide a written statement of particulars when employment began and made a further declaration. The unlawful deduction from wages complaint was dismissed because the claimant had later received the outstanding pay.

No compensation was determined in this judgment. The tribunal listed the case for a one-day remedy hearing and said that Polkey issues and any ACAS uplift would be considered there.