Ms Izabela Szachta v Argyll London Limited — 2021

The respondent was a small building and refurbishment company. The claimant worked as an office manager with substantial book-keeping responsibilities, and the tribunal found that the finance function had systemic flaws that were not attributable to her underperformance. When she told Mr MacMillan she was pregnant on 9 July 2018, the tribunal rejected the alleged hostile remarks, and it found the later discussion about maternity leave was ordinary and amicable.

The tribunal found that by 22 November 2018 the respondent had taken a genuine business decision to outsource the finance function to Insight on a permanent basis. By 12 January 2019 the claimant's role in book-keeping was no longer required and she was at risk of redundancy. However, the tribunal found that Mr MacMillan had not fully turned his mind to the effect on her return from maternity leave, and that her pregnancy and impending maternity leave were a material, subconscious cause of the failure to warn and consult with her earlier.

The tribunal also found discriminatory detriments in later meetings. It accepted that Mr MacMillan said it was easier to tell a pregnant woman or a woman on maternity leave that her job was at risk, and it accepted comments about the claimant accepting a part-time role because she had just had a baby. The failure to consult earlier was found to be because of pregnancy and maternity leave, while the repeated assumption that she would prefer reduced hours was sex discrimination based on a stereotype about mothers. The tribunal rejected the proposition that the outsourcing decision itself, or the dismissal, was because of pregnancy, maternity or sex, and held that the dismissal reason was redundancy.

The claim under the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999 was dismissed. The tribunal held that the redundancy dismissal was unfair under s.98(4) ERA 1996 because consultation began too late and the appeal/grievance process was not independent, but it also found there was a 100% chance the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event. Remedy was therefore limited to £652.50 for loss of statutory rights, £35 expenses, and £11,000 for injury to feelings at the lower end of the middle Vento band, for a total award of £11,687.50.