Miss S Matuizaite v Korzinka Taste of Europe Limited — 2021

The claimant worked for the respondent as a sales assistant from December 2017 until her dismissal on 13 January 2019. The tribunal found that she was a model employee, that she was not late or absent through sickness, and that the respondent accepted she had performed well until August 2018. It also accepted that she told the respondent about two antenatal appointments and that her shifts were adjusted so she was not rostered to work on those dates.

The tribunal found that in December 2018 the claimant told the respondent that she intended to start maternity leave on 6 February 2019. It concluded that the decision to dismiss her had been taken before 13 January 2019 by the general manager, Umid, who did not give evidence. The tribunal rejected the respondent's case that the dismissal was because of poor performance or rude behaviour, noting that there were no recorded warnings, no documentary support for the allegations, and no proper basis for the references in the dismissal letter to attendance problems, verbal warnings, or ignored working rules.

Applying section 99 Employment Rights Act 1996 and the pregnancy and maternity provisions of the Equality Act 2010, together with the burden of proof approach in section 136 and Igen v Wong, the tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was that the claimant was about to take maternity leave and that the respondent was concerned about paying statutory maternity pay. It therefore upheld the unfair dismissal and pregnancy and maternity discrimination claims. It also found that the respondent had not paid all holiday pay due and had failed to provide written terms and conditions of employment.

No monetary remedy was determined in this judgment. The tribunal directed that compensation would be decided at a remedy hearing on 17 May 2021, including any section 38 Employment Act 2002 award for failure to provide written particulars.