Case 3300021/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Balmer, Counsel For the v Mr R Barker, Solicitor — 2018
- Case reference
- 3300021/2018
- Decision date
- 28 December 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ord Members
- Venue
- Huntingdon
- Panel members
- Mr P Devonald, Mrs S Timoney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Balmer, Counsel For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant had worked for Volkswagen Financial Services UK Limited since 1999 and was employed as Assistant Controls Accountant. The tribunal found that Joe Cooper was recruited as additional resource rather than as a permanent replacement for the claimant, and that the claimant's flexible working request was ultimately resolved by agreement to a 32-hour, four-day trial arrangement.
The pregnancy and maternity discrimination claims under s.18 EqA were rejected as out of time. The tribunal held that the claimant had not shown it was just and equitable to extend time, referred to the principles in Barclays Bank Plc v Kapur and Robertson v Bexley Community Care Centre, and said that in any event the individual complaints did not amount to unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy or maternity. It found the Christmas lunch omission and the flowers issue were oversights, that the claimant had not sought further information while on maternity leave, and that the flexible working and return-to-work issues were dealt with by agreed arrangements.
The direct sex discrimination claim failed because the tribunal found that no assurance had been given that the claimant would receive a redundancy payment if no suitable role was available after sabbatical. It also found that the 29 September 2017 call was not a requirement to return immediately, but a request to consider an early return because recruitment was restarting, with the option of returning by no later than 1 January 2018 if she accepted that course.
The dismissal claims also failed. The tribunal held that the claimant was not dismissed within the meaning of s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996 because she resigned, that there was no final straw capable of founding constructive dismissal, and that she had delayed before resigning and had affirmed her contract by proceeding with the sabbatical arrangements. The automatic unfair dismissal allegation under the maternity regulations failed for the same reason, and all claims were dismissed against all respondents.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The claimant alleged that the 29 September 2017 call and the related October emails amounted to a final straw and a repudiatory breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. The tribunal found there was no final straw, no breach supporting constructive dismissal, and that the claimant had resigned after delaying and affirming her contract by proceeding with the sabbatical arrangements. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal allegation under regulation 20(3)(a), (b) and (d) of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999 and s.99 ERA 1996, based on pregnancy, childbirth and maternity leave. The tribunal held that the claimant was not dismissed at all because her employment ended by resignation, and the maternity-related dismissal case therefore failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The claimant advanced eight s.18 EqA complaints, including lack of information during maternity leave, the permanent recruitment of Joe Cooper, the flexible working process, the Christmas lunch invitation, the return-to-work handling, comments said to have been made on 12 February 2016, the extension of the flexible working trial period, and the failure to send flowers after the second birth. The tribunal held these complaints were out of time, refused to extend time as just and equitable, and said that in any event they failed on the merits. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | The claimant alleged direct sex discrimination in relation to the alleged withdrawal of assurances before sabbatical leave, the alleged denial of a redundancy payment if no role was available, and the 29 September 2017 call. The tribunal found no assurance of redundancy had been given and found the call was a request to consider an early return because recruitment was restarting, not a demand that she return immediately. |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s.99 ERA 1996
- regulation 20(3)(a), (b) and (d) Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Barclays Bank Plc v Kapur
- Robertson v Bexley Community Care Centre
- s.18 Equality Act 2010
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
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.