Case 4101141/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Members L Millar and G McKay Miss Sarah Twort v Coasters Wine Bar Oban Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4101141/2022
- Decision date
- 22 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S MacLean Tribunal
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- L Millar, G McKay
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Members L Millar and G McKay Miss Sarah Twort
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Sarah Twort was employed by Coasters Wine Bar Oban Ltd as a bar manager. The tribunal accepted that she told Ms MacPhail she was pregnant around October 2021, that she needed antenatal appointments, and that Ms MacPhail made a comment that the pregnancy would make it easier to sell the pub. The tribunal also accepted that the claimant had emergency antenatal appointments because of bleeding and that she arranged cover for shifts at short notice.
After the 12 November 2021 drinks incident, Ms MacPhail asked whether Mr Clarke had paid for drinks because she had not seen a tab open. The claimant explained that he had paid as he went along and there was no further action at that stage. When the claimant later went off sick in early December 2021, the tribunal found that the absence was pregnancy-related and that Ms MacPhail did not respond to the claimant’s attempts to arrange a meeting. On 21 December 2021 the claimant received a letter saying she would be dismissed from 16 December 2021 unless she resigned or could prove the allegation. The tribunal found there had been no proper investigation, no disciplinary meeting, and no real opportunity for the claimant to answer the allegation.
The tribunal held that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was the claimant’s pregnancy and pregnancy-related absences, so the dismissal was automatically unfair under s.99(3)(a) ERA 1996 and unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy under s.18 EqA 2010. The harassment complaint under s.26 EqA 2010 was dismissed because pregnancy is not a protected characteristic for that section. Having upheld automatic unfair dismissal, the tribunal did not need to decide the alternative ordinary unfair dismissal question under s.98 ERA 1996.
For remedy, the tribunal awarded £10,873.69 for loss of earnings, £7,000 for injury to feelings, and £666.65 interest on the discrimination award. On the unfair dismissal side it awarded a basic award of £700, £500 for loss of statutory rights, a 25 percent ACAS uplift of £2,843.42, and a further £700 under s.38 Employment Act 2002 because the respondent had not provided full and accurate written particulars. The total award was £23,283.76.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The s.18 EqA complaint succeeded. The tribunal awarded £10,873.69 for loss of earnings, £7,000 for injury to feelings, and £666.65 interest on those sums. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | £18,540 |
| Harassment | Dismissed because pregnancy/maternity is not one of the protected characteristics listed in s.26 EqA 2010. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under s.99(3)(a) ERA 1996. The award included a £700 basic award, £500 for loss of statutory rights, a £2,843.42 ACAS uplift, and a further £700 under s.38 Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £4,743 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £23,284
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £700
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £14,917
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.99(3)(a) ERA 1996
- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.18 EqA 2010
- s.26 EqA 2010
- s.39 EqA 2010
- Vento guidelines
- Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 1996
- s.270A TULR(C)A 1992
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.