Ms S. Mason v Virtual PA Solutions Limited — 2021

The tribunal heard claims of direct sex discrimination, automatically unfair dismissal under s.99 ERA, pregnancy and maternity discrimination, and unfair (constructive) dismissal. The direct sex discrimination claim and the s.99 ERA claim were withdrawn before the hearing and were dismissed on withdrawal. The pregnancy and maternity discrimination claim succeeded only on Issue (E), the failure to inform and consult the Claimant during maternity leave about a contractual change to a restrictive covenant. The tribunal awarded £900 for injury to feelings and £108 interest.

On the maternity-related allegations, the tribunal found that the Respondent had taken suitable steps in relation to pregnancy health and safety, including a general risk assessment, a DSE assessment, an ergonomic stool, home-working arrangements, and correspondence confirming that health and safety was being considered. It rejected the complaints about KIT days, company events during maternity leave, marginalisation, and the alleged removal of the Claimant’s desk. The tribunal held that the failure to invite the Claimant to the contract-change consultation was unfavourable treatment and a detriment, because she was deprived of the opportunity to be consulted at the same time as colleagues. Although Ms York said she was trying to be sensitive because the Claimant was on maternity leave, the tribunal found that the reason why she was not consulted then was still maternity leave.

The tribunal accepted that the Issue (E) complaint was brought in time only because it extended time on a just and equitable basis. It found that Mr French’s grievance appeal investigation was inadequate because he made no independent enquiries and did not act impartially, but it did not find discriminatory treatment in the handling of the grievance or appeal. On the constructive dismissal claim, the tribunal found that several alleged matters did not occur, or did not amount to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. It held that the failure to involve the Claimant in KIT-day discussions and the delayed consultation over the contract change were not repudiatory conduct.

The tribunal found that the Claimant resigned solely in response to the April 2019 decision not to award her a pay rise. It also found that she had already accepted new employment before the appeal outcome was communicated. Although the grievance appeal process was found wanting, the tribunal held that it did not cause the resignation and did not amount to constructive dismissal. The claim for unfair (constructive) dismissal was therefore dismissed.