Mr A Sadygov (Representative) For the v Mr C Singh (Owner/Secretary) — 2023

The tribunal extended time limits for the pregnancy discrimination complaint and then addressed the central issue of whether the claimant resigned or was dismissed. It preferred the respondent’s account of the 13 April 2020 meeting, finding that the claimant, through her husband, asked for her P45 and was treated as having given notice. On that basis, it found that employment ended on 13 May 2020 under the contract’s one-month notice period, not on 31 May or 26 June 2020, and the unfair dismissal and notice-pay claims failed because there had been no dismissal.

On the pregnancy discrimination allegations, the tribunal found that Mr Singh knew of the claimant’s pregnancy by the first few days of March 2020 at the latest, and probably in February 2020, but it was not satisfied that the claimant proved less favourable treatment because of pregnancy. The evidence that she was asked to clean toilets or do pedicures more often was described as vague, and the tribunal accepted that those tasks were part of her contract and were allocated within the team rather than by Mr Singh. It also held that there was insufficient evidence that the absence of a risk assessment, or any failure to adjust working conditions, was linked to pregnancy on the facts found.

The remaining claims were also dismissed. The claim for failure to provide a statement of main terms and conditions was dismissed by consent, as was the statutory redundancy payment claim. The claim for a written statement of reasons for dismissal was dismissed because the claimant had not been dismissed, and the reasons also refer to a claim for arrears for 1 June to 26 June 2020 which did not arise after the finding that employment ended on 13 May 2020. No monetary award was made.