Ms Sian Reid v ADSI Limited — 2021

Ms Sian Reid was summarily dismissed by ADSI Limited on 19 June 2019 while pregnant after an investigation into her call-handling practice. The respondent found that she had been leaving outgoing calls open after reaching voicemail so that call figures would appear higher than they were. The tribunal accepted that she had admitted this conduct in the disciplinary process and that, over a period of months, it was found on multiple occasions. The claimant brought claims for pregnancy-related discrimination under section 18 Equality Act 2010 and automatically unfair dismissal under section 99 Employment Rights Act 1996.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's attempt to rely on comparisons with other employees, including RS and GC. It found RS was not in a comparable position because his misconduct was less extensive, he said he was using the time for other work, and he apologised during the hearing. It also found GC was not comparable because she had not engaged in the same conduct of leaving silent voicemail calls open, and she had expressed remorse. The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that these differences were material to the disciplinary outcomes.

The tribunal also rejected the claimant's reliance on other matters said to point to pregnancy-related treatment, including the refusal to bring forward annual leave that had not yet accrued and the handling of antenatal appointments. It found there was no legal right to take the later Christmas and New Year leave early, that the claimant had booked annual leave for each appointment herself, and that the evidence suggested Mrs Rand understood her obligations to pregnant employees. The tribunal further held that any defects in the disciplinary process, including the absence of the investigation documents before the hearing, did not by themselves support an inference of pregnancy discrimination.

Applying the burden of proof approach under section 136 Equality Act 2010 and the authorities cited, including Igen v Wong, Madarassay v Nomura International plc, and Hewage v Grampian Health Board, the tribunal held that the burden did not shift to the respondent. Even if it had, the respondent had shown that the only reason for dismissal was gross misconduct. For the same reason, the automatically unfair dismissal claim failed: the tribunal found that the principal reason for dismissal was the claimant's misconduct, not a reason connected with pregnancy.