Claimant v The Forbury Ltd and Mr V Punchaye — 2019

The claimant worked as a waitress at the first respondent's hotel restaurant, and the second respondent was the general manager. The case management order identified automatic unfair dismissal because of pregnancy, direct pregnancy or maternity discrimination, a detriment claim under s.47C ERA 1996 or alternative victimisation about shift allocation after a grievance, breach of contract for dismissal without notice, and unpaid wages for overtime. By the hearing, the parties had agreed a figure of £2,000 for unlawful deductions from wages, which the tribunal recorded by consent.

On the shift-allocation allegations, the tribunal found no material detriment and no direct pregnancy discrimination. It accepted that the claimant had asked on 5 May 2017 to work mornings or afternoons because of pregnancy-related sickness, but the rota evidence showed that in the two weeks after that complaint she still had an early shift and then a shift that was, on the tribunal's finding, effectively the most advantageous for her. The tribunal held that removing split shifts was not a material change and that the refusal to move her onto mornings was simply maintaining the existing arrangement, especially as the morning shift was already covered by another pregnant employee and involved duties such as mini-bar restocking and moving furniture.

The dismissal-based claims also failed. The tribunal heard conflicting accounts of the evening when the claimant said she was told she was no longer needed, but it preferred the oral evidence of Ms Papoutsi, who said she understood the second respondent to be telling the claimant to go home and recover. Applying the objective reasonable-listener approach referenced to Harvey DI[230], the tribunal found that there was no dismissal, so the automatic unfair dismissal claim and the breach of contract claim for dismissal without notice could not succeed. The reasons text records the event as occurring on 12 May 2019, but the surrounding chronology and the parties' emails and texts place it in 2017.

The unpaid wages issue was resolved by agreement, and the tribunal did not need to determine the underlying overtime calculation. It noted concerns about the respondents' disclosure and record-keeping around hours worked, overtime, and time off in lieu, and urged the first respondent to review its pay and record-keeping practices.