Mr L Pike (solicitor) For the v Respondent — 2022

Ms Rebecca Smith and Ms Emma Beaver were both dismissed on 30 September 2020 after the respondent undertook a redundancy exercise in its buying department during the first Covid-19 lockdown. The tribunal found that the respondent had faced a major downturn, closed 40 stores, made widespread redundancies, and consulted employees through collective and individual meetings, with scores prepared by Anthony Talbot and Beth Watson and appeals later heard by Anne Heather.

The tribunal held that both dismissals were fair under s.98 ERA 1996. It accepted that redundancy was the genuine reason for dismissal, found the consultation process to be detailed and adequate, accepted the respondent's explanation for limiting the redundancy pool to four category buyers, and rejected the challenge to the selection criteria and scoring. It also held that the delayed circulation of other vacancies, including footwear buyer and ecommerce training manager roles, did not make the dismissals unfair because those roles were not suitable alternative employment for the claimants.

Ms Smith's protective award claim under s.189 TULRCA 1992 was dismissed. The tribunal held that her ET1 did not advance a collective claim on behalf of other dismissed employees, only on her own behalf, and in any event found that the respondent had complied with the collective consultation requirements in good time and had disclosed and discussed the relevant information with representatives.

Ms Beaver's pregnancy and maternity discrimination claim under s.18 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. The tribunal did not accept her evidence that she had been given little work because of pregnancy, that the alleged remark about pregnant buyers proved discrimination, or that the scoring process was tainted because it covered the 12 months before maternity leave. It relied on the absence of complaints at the time, the lack of supporting evidence, and her email praising the owner shortly before maternity leave. Her s.47C ERA 1996 detriment claim also failed: there was no evidence that she was selected for furlough because she had taken maternity leave, and the one-day time-off-with-dependants point was not adequately made out under s.57A ERA 1996.