Miss E Walker v Arco Environmental Limited — 2019

Miss Walker worked for Arco Environmental Limited from 13 November to 13 December 2017. The tribunal found that she had been recruited to cover office manager duties and some payroll and finance tasks, that she told the respondent she was pregnant on 6 December 2017, and that after that disclosure Mr and Mrs Rees withdrew from normal engagement with her while Mr Grant and Mr Heyfron raised questions that suggested suspicion that she had taken the job in order to obtain maternity benefits.

On 11 December 2017 the tribunal found that Mrs Rees asked whether she had been trying to get pregnant and made the remark found to be "oh well, shit happens, it's a new life". Later that day Mr Heyfron asked whether she knew she was pregnant when she took the job, and Mr Grant told her to "tread carefully" around Mr Rees. The tribunal accepted the claimant's reaction that the meeting and the failure to answer her subsequent message amounted to unfavourable treatment and harassment because of pregnancy. It also found that on 12 December 2017 Mr and Mrs Rees ignored her while greeting Mr Heyfron, which was again unfavourable treatment and harassment related to pregnancy.

At the meeting on 13 December 2017 the tribunal found that Mr Heyfron told the claimant he would now be her line manager and sent an email with an attached pregnancy risk assessment referring to possible changes to her hours and days. The tribunal held that, in the context of the earlier treatment, the claimant reasonably understood the changes to hours as fixed and that she resigned in response to the situation. It concluded that the cumulative conduct over 11-13 December 2017 satisfied the definition of harassment under s.26 Equality Act 2010, that the claimant had discharged the burden under s.136, and that the dismissal was automatically unfair because the principal reason was pregnancy under s.99(3)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996.

The tribunal also upheld the claim for breach of contract for unpaid notice pay and the claim for failure to provide written particulars of employment. On the particulars claim it said the claimant was entitled to the maximum four weeks' pay, but the amount was to be calculated at a separate remedy hearing. The tribunal deferred compensation for the dismissal and discrimination claims to that same remedy hearing.