In person For the v Respondent — 2018

Mrs Barrett worked in TUI UK & Ireland's finance department from 20 August 2012 and resigned on 23 April 2018, effective 23 July 2018. She brought claims of ordinary constructive unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal connected with pregnancy or maternity leave, pregnancy and maternity discrimination, maternity-related detriment, direct sex discrimination and sex harassment. The tribunal dismissed all claims.

The tribunal found that the respondent expected the claimant to return from maternity leave and that Ms Daisy Eggleton was recruited as maternity cover for business reasons. Her early start gave a longer handover period, and the tribunal rejected the contention that she had been promised the claimant's role before the claimant resigned. The change to Ms King's reporting line, the desk move and the duplication of some work were found to be temporary or handover-related matters; the claimant was not isolated from her team and remained involved in her role except for work connected with Ms King's duties.

The claimant became concerned after a 8 February 2018 email said that Ms Eggleton and Mr Meijer had been made permanent members of the finance and TUI team. The tribunal found that the email did not appoint Ms Eggleton permanently to the claimant's role, although it could have been more clearly worded and explained to the claimant in advance. The grievance and appeal outcomes repeatedly stated that the claimant's role remained available to her, and the tribunal found that the grievance and appeal had been properly and thoroughly investigated.

For constructive dismissal, the tribunal considered each alleged breach and found no breach of contract, no repudiatory breach and no dismissal. The automatic unfair dismissal claim also failed because there was no dismissal. The tribunal found that the respondent had not marginalised the claimant or forced her out, and that once it knew of her concerns it addressed them with care, compassion and clarity.

For the s.47C detriment and s.18 pregnancy and maternity discrimination claims, the tribunal found that the alleged matters were either not detriments or unfavourable treatment, or were not because of pregnancy, childbirth or maternity leave. It found that not increasing the claimant's pay in October 2017 was unfavourable treatment, but was because her pay was already within the band and had already been assessed, while Ms Eggleton's pay had been below the band. It also found that Ms Eggleton's 12 May 2018 email gave an incorrect reason for the claimant's non-return, but did so because of an inaccurate supposition and not because of pregnancy or maternity absence.

The direct sex discrimination claim failed because the tribunal found no basis for concluding that a hypothetical comparator would have been treated differently or that any differential treatment was because of sex. The harassment claim failed because the tribunal found the relevant conduct was not related to sex or did not have the prescribed purpose or effect, taking account of the claimant's perception, the circumstances and whether it was reasonable for the conduct to have that effect. The tribunal also held that, apart from the unfair dismissal claim, the claims were out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time in light of its findings on the merits. No remedy was awarded; the hearing was on liability only and the £2,000 figure in the judgment related to annual pay comparison evidence, not compensation.