Case 3200130/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss F Malacu v Accelerate Cleaning Solutions Ltd and 1 other — 2019
- Case reference
- 3200130/2018
- Decision date
- 14 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reid Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mr P Quinn, Mr M Rowe
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss F Malacu
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant’s employment transferred from the first respondent to the second respondent with effect from 1 October 2017 under TUPE. It found that, although the claimant had been discussing extending maternity leave and returning part-time, she did not object to the transfer before it took place. The tribunal rejected her case that a letter of objection had been sent before transfer, finding instead that the contemporaneous documents, including the Viber message of 22 September 2017, showed she was saying she would not return to work after maternity leave and would give notice, rather than objecting to the transfer.
On that basis, the claimant’s accrued holiday pay continued with the transferring employment and became payable by the second respondent at the end of maternity leave on 16 November 2017. The tribunal held that she was entitled to 28 days holiday pay from the second respondent, subject to deductions for tax or National Insurance contributions. The claim for the same holiday pay against the first respondent was dismissed because the employment had already transferred. The reasons section records that a remedy hearing had been provisionally listed for 9 December 2019, but the tribunal noted that the holiday pay could potentially be calculated from transfer information already held by the respondents.
The maternity discrimination claim was dismissed against both respondents. The tribunal accepted that the non-payment of holiday pay when it fell due was unfavourable treatment, but held that the second respondent’s conduct was caused by its misunderstanding of the claimant’s TUPE position and liability for the payment, not by the fact that she was on maternity leave. As to the first respondent, the tribunal found no pre-transfer act or omission in relation to the holiday pay that amounted to pregnancy or maternity discrimination, and concluded that it had not discriminated because it believed it was no longer the claimant’s employer and was not liable for the payment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | The accrued holiday pay claim under Regulation 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 succeeded against the second respondent only. The tribunal found the claimant’s employment transferred to the second respondent on 1 October 2017 because she had not objected before the transfer. The claim for the same holiday pay against the first respondent was dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal dismissed the maternity discrimination claim against both respondents under s.18(4) Equality Act 2010. It accepted that the non-payment of holiday pay was unfavourable treatment, but found that the reason was a misunderstanding about TUPE liability, not because the claimant was exercising or had exercised maternity leave rights. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- Regulation 14(2) Working Time Regulations 1998
- Regulation 4(7) TUPE 2006
- Regulation 4(2) TUPE 2006
- s.18(4) Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Trustees of Swansea University Pension Scheme and Swansea University v Williams
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- Igen v Wong
- Efobi v Royal Mail Group Ltd
- Anya v University of Oxford
- Law Society v Bahl
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.