Joanna Kusmierek v Spalding Market Ltd — 2021

The tribunal treated the unfair dismissal complaint as an automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 99(3) ERA 1996 because the claimant did not have two years' service for ordinary unfair dismissal. It found that the claimant told a colleague, Karolina Miszara, that she was pregnant in February 2020, that this was passed to the respondent, and that from 30 March 2020 she was absent on GP sick notes. It accepted that the respondent knew about the pregnancy, the sick notes, and the later Mat B1 form brought in by the claimant's husband.

The tribunal preferred the evidence of the claimant, her husband, and Karolina to that of Mr Kadir and Mr Ibrahimi, whose evidence it found contradictory in material respects. It found that the respondent did not accept the sick notes, believed the claimant was using pregnancy as an excuse, and that the claimant's husband was told, in substance, that if she did not return to work forthwith she would be dismissed. It found the effective date of termination was 9 June 2020, when the claimant received the P45, and concluded that no part of the reason for dismissal was displaced from pregnancy.

On that basis the tribunal upheld both the automatic unfair dismissal claim and the pregnancy discrimination claim under section 18(2) Equality Act 2010. It made no separate award for the dismissal claim because it found no loss of earnings to compensate, including because the claimant later received maternity pay. For discrimination it assessed injury to feelings at the bottom of the middle Vento band and awarded £10,000, with no additional interest.

The tribunal also made a separate award under section 38 Employment Act 2002 because the claimant had not been given written particulars of employment. It said the award should be the maximum four weeks' pay, calculated from weekly pay of £131.35, giving £525.40. The total award was £10,525.40.