Ms Jowita Parsons v International Forest Products (UK) Limited — 2023

Ms Parsons was employed as an import coordinator from 4 March 2019 until her dismissal on 11 February 2022. The tribunal found that, after two periods of maternity leave and additional leave, she repeatedly told the respondent that she could not return to work and could not give any reliable timeframe for returning. It accepted that she was facing very difficult personal circumstances, but found that the respondent, a small employer with 21 UK employees, had genuine operational pressure because the role remained open and difficult to cover.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal held that the reason for dismissal was some other substantial reason: the claimant's unwillingness or inability to provide any indication of when she could return. It found that the respondent acted within the band of reasonable responses, had followed a fair process, invited her to a disciplinary hearing, allowed an appeal, and had already tried to be flexible by extending leave arrangements and using holiday and parental leave to bridge gaps. It therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal claim and recorded that the ACAS Code did not apply.

On pregnancy and maternity discrimination, the tribunal found that no homeworking application had been made on 14 December 2021, so there was no rejection of such a request. It also found that the refusal to allow ongoing unpaid leave was because there was no statutory right to further unpaid leave, not because the claimant had exercised maternity leave rights. At the date of dismissal she was on unpaid parental leave, not within the protected period for section 18 protection, and the dismissal was not because of pregnancy or maternity. On indirect sex discrimination, the tribunal found there was no PCP restricting homeworking: some employees worked from home, and the claimant had not put forward a formal homeworking request. All three claims were dismissed and no remedy was awarded.