Case 3201418/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Channer v Time 4 Recruitment Solutions Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3201418/2019
- Decision date
- 18 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Members
- Venue
- East London
- Panel members
- Mrs G Forrest, Mr M Rowe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Channer
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss J Channer brought claims of pregnancy and maternity discrimination and unlawful deduction from wages against Time 4 Recruitment Solutions Limited. The tribunal found that the Respondent’s decision in December 2017 to recruit a Branch Manager for London pre-dated knowledge of the pregnancy announced on 4 January 2018, and that the January 2018 advertisement was a more senior role prompted by continuing concerns about the performance of the London construction team. It rejected the case that the role was created to replace the Claimant because of pregnancy or impending maternity leave.
The tribunal also rejected the allegation that the Claimant was demoted on 2 February 2018 because of pregnancy. It found that concerns about her management had been raised informally before the pregnancy was announced, that the probation review on 1 February 2018 was the first formal discussion of those concerns, and that the alternative of a sales role at a reduced salary was a mutually agreed change rather than an enforced demotion. The March 2018 pay issue was found not to be pregnancy-related because the Respondent did not realise the absence was pregnancy related at the time, and the omission from the 7 December 2018 pay-date email was found to be an administrative oversight connected with her being on maternity leave, but not treatment because of maternity leave within the meaning of s.18 Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal found that the dismissal on redundancy grounds in February 2019 was caused by the closure of the London office for financial reasons, not by maternity leave. It accepted that Mr Halsey had been recruited for a Cardiff-based sales role and was not a replacement for the Claimant, that there was no requirement to pool him with the Claimant, and that no suitable alternative work was shown to exist. It also found the consultation process, including the dispute about the venue for the meeting and the email of 23 January 2019, was not hostile and was not connected to pregnancy or maternity leave. The deduction-from-wages claim failed because the tribunal found it was brought out of time and, in any event, there was no contractual entitlement to the additional pay claimed beyond statutory sick pay.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal dismissed the allegations under s.18 Equality Act 2010 that the advertisement and recruitment of a Branch Manager in January 2018, the move from Divisional Manager to Senior Recruitment Consultant in February 2018, the March 2018 pay issue, the December 2018 pay-date email omission, and the January 2019 redundancy process and dismissal were because of pregnancy or maternity leave. It found the Branch Manager decision had been taken in December 2017 because of ongoing performance concerns in the London office, the role change was a mutually agreed change rather than a demotion, the March 2018 underpayment happened because the absence was not understood to be pregnancy-related, and the redundancy arose from closure of the London office with no suitable alternative employment. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim that £427.25 was unlawfully deducted in March 2018 was dismissed. The tribunal found the claim was presented outside the three-month time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to bring it in time. It also found the claimant had no contractual entitlement to company sick pay beyond statutory sick pay, so there was no contractual basis for the additional sum claimed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.18 Equality Act 2010
- Onu v Akwiwu
- Williams v Trustees of Swansea University Pension and Assurance Scheme
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International Plc
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.13(3) ERA 1996
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.23 ERA 1996
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.