Mr J Heard - Counsel For the v Ms N Owen - Counsel — 2021

The tribunal heard Mrs S Sandher v The Curve Group before Employment Judge Self with lay members Mrs M Rance and Mr B Allen. Mrs Sandher had worked for the respondent since 29 June 2011, went on maternity leave on 2 January 2018, and was dismissed on 8 February 2019 after a redundancy process linked to contract losses and changes in the RPO division, including the loss of PIB and JLT work and changes to the Aldermore account. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had been a good employee, but rejected the suggestion that the later restructuring was contrived to target her maternity leave.

On the section 18 Equality Act claims, the tribunal rejected the allegations that the claimant should have been consulted about the creation of the Head of Recruitment Services role, about wider organisational changes, and about what was said at the 19 October 2018 meeting with Mrs Wolfe. It found that the Aldermore role developed in response to client requirements, that the claimant was told her expected role would not be there and that she may be made redundant, and that the dismissal and related treatment were not because of pregnancy or maternity leave. The related Reg 19 MAPLE detriment claims were also dismissed, and the tribunal said the pre-October 2018 allegation was out of time and not part of a continuing act.

On the maternity-leave redundancy claims, the tribunal held that there was a redundancy situation because the claimant's workload had reduced and the respondent had lost substantial business. It found that it was not practicable for her to remain employed under her existing contract and that there was no suitable available vacancy during maternity leave, so the Reg 10 MAPLE claim failed. The tribunal also rejected the automatic unfair dismissal case under Reg 20 MAPLE/s.99 ERA 1996 because the dismissal was not because of maternity leave.

The ordinary unfair dismissal claim succeeded because the respondent did not adequately consider pooling the claimant with the Divisional Managing Directors or others at her level, which the tribunal held was outside the range of reasonable responses under s.98(4) ERA 1996 and consistent with Williams v Compare Maxam and Taymech v Ryan. The tribunal nevertheless found that the claimant would have been dismissed on the same date anyway, so no compensatory award flowed from the unfair dismissal finding. The hearing was on liability only, so no monetary award was set out.