Miss S Cousins v The Nannery Ltd and 1 other — 2018

Miss S Cousins worked for The Nannery Ltd from 15 February 2016 until her summary dismissal on 15 January 2018, having been promoted to manager shortly after starting. She notified Mrs Maria Noble of her pregnancy on 4 September 2017. The tribunal found that the claimant then repeatedly sought time off for antenatal appointments, often attaching proof by email, and that the respondent repeatedly refused or sought to move the appointments to dates and times the hospital would not accommodate. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had tried to rearrange appointments where possible and that the respondent did not properly consider temporary cover or rota adjustments.

The tribunal found that matters escalated after the pregnancy announcement. The claimant was signed off work with stress from 23 October 2017. A meeting on 17 October 2017 raised alleged discrepancies between hours recorded on the wages sheets and the signing in and out book, and the respondent later deducted 95 hours' pay on 3 November 2017 without prior warning or explanation. The claimant then faced a disciplinary invitation alleging gross misconduct, including alleged falsification of timesheets and failures relating to health and safety and staff training, followed by an investigatory process in which she was given 90 questions and a short deadline to answer. The tribunal found the grievance and appeal processes were not properly investigated and that the respondent's handling of them was unreasonable.

On liability, the tribunal upheld the s.18 pregnancy claim, the s.26 harassment claim relating to sex, the s.22 victimisation claim, the s.47 pregnancy-related detriment claim, the s.99 automatic unfair dismissal claim, and the s.55 antenatal care claim. It found the respondents had failed to give an adequate explanation for the treatment, that the claimant's failure to sign in and out on some occasions was at most an oversight, and that other staff had not been disciplined for similar matters. The tribunal concluded that the dismissal was because of pregnancy and that a written warning would have been the most that was appropriate on the signing-in issue. The s.104 claim failed because the tribunal was not persuaded that the dismissal was for asserting a statutory right.

On remedy, the tribunal cited Prison Service v Johnson, the Vento bands and Voith Turbo Ltd v Stowe. It placed injury to feelings in the middle Vento band at £15,000 and added £2,000 for aggravated damages, with interest of £4,326.36 calculated at £3.72 per day over 1,163 days from 15 January 2018. The financial losses allowed were £3,385.20 for loss of earnings from sick leave to dismissal, £1,485.80 for loss of earnings to the start of maternity leave, £1,159.95 for loss of maternity pay after mitigation, £2,520.00 for holiday pay, and £9,657.77 for future loss, giving a total award of £39,535.08. The tribunal declined the claimant's costs application under rule 76, noting that the case had been listed for eight days and finished in seven.