Member M Watt Tribunal Member S Cardownie Raheela Zanib v (through an Interpreter) Almond Blossom Care Ltd — 2025

The tribunal treated the live claims as a pregnancy-related automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.99 ERA 1996, a pregnancy discrimination claim under s.18 Equality Act 2010, and financial claims for unpaid wages/SSP and holiday pay. It heard evidence from the claimant, her husband, Ms Okoro and Mr Ebuka, and found that the evidence was inconsistent on several points, so it relied heavily on contemporaneous documents.

The tribunal found that the claimant told the respondent on 29 July 2023 that she was pregnant. Mr Ebuka carried out an informal risk assessment, moved her away from a round that involved double-handed calls, and the respondent later gave her further risk assessment and retraining. At the meeting on 31 October 2023 the claimant handed over her MAT B1 form and was told she would return to the rota from 1 November. After the meeting she disclosed that she had already booked travel to Pakistan for 5 November, and Ms Okoro decided to dismiss her. The dismissal email referred to repeated failure to abide by policies and failure to pass probation.

Applying s.18 Equality Act 2010, s.136 Equality Act 2010, and the burden of proof approach discussed in Igen Ltd v Wong, Hewage v Grampian Health Board and Efobi v Royal Mail Group, the tribunal accepted that the claimant was in the protected period and that dismissal was unfavourable treatment. It nevertheless found that the respondent had shown the dismissal was not because of pregnancy or pregnancy-related illness. The tribunal accepted Ms Okoro's evidence that the decisive factor was the claimant's disclosure that she had already booked the Pakistan trip after the return-to-work discussion, which undermined confidence in her.

The tribunal also held that the claimant was entitled to SSP and salary arrears. It found that the respondent's contractual practice was to pay the claimant's salary for the 43-hour week in the June 2023 contract, but that in practice she had been paid only for hours worked. It awarded SSP for 7 to 12 July, 2 to 15 August and 25 August to 25 September 2023, and salary for days in September and for October when no pay or SSP was provided. The tribunal rejected the respondent's reliance on an alleged absence-reporting breach, noting that the actual procedure was not lodged and that withholding SSP was not justified. The total for unlawfully withheld wages was £3,078.45.

On holiday pay, the tribunal found that the claimant had taken no paid annual leave during employment between 5 April 2023 and 2 November 2023. It calculated entitlement on the basis of 3.25 weeks' paid leave and awarded £1,523.25. The final result was that the pregnancy discrimination claim and the pregnancy-related automatic unfair dismissal claim were dismissed, while the financial claims succeeded in the amounts set out above.