Member Mrs LJ Taylor Tribunal Member Mr SF Evans Klaudia Cierpial v 15 UK Soccershop Limited and 1 other — 2020

The claimant worked for just over five months as a printing coordinator for UK Soccershop. After the Amazon US account was suspended and the business experienced a downturn, the respondent decided that staffing levels had to be reduced. The claimant told the respondent on 21 November 2019 that she was pregnant, and in early January 2020 the parties exchanged emails about both the business position and her likely maternity plans.

The tribunal found that the claimant was included in a redundancy pool of five employees who were trained or capable of doing the printing coordinator role. It accepted that the selection criteria, including experience, attendance, disciplinary record, skills and performance, were objective and related to the respondent's business needs. The claimant scored lowest in the pool and the tribunal found that the scoring exercise was carried out conscientiously on the basis of the material then available. It also found that 16 employees were made redundant in the same period, reducing headcount from 42 to 26.

Although the tribunal held that the timing of the dismissal and the overlap between discussions about work and maternity were enough to shift the burden of proof under section 136 EqA 2010, it found that the respondent discharged that burden. It accepted that there was a genuine downturn in business and no manipulation of the redundancy process to target the claimant because of pregnancy or maternity. The tribunal also found that any procedural flaws, including a lack of consultation, were applied across the workforce and did not point to discriminatory treatment.

On that basis the tribunal held that there was no contravention of section 18(2) or 18(4) Equality Act 2010 and no automatic unfair dismissal under section 99 ERA 1996 or regulation 20 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999. The claim for unpaid annual leave was withdrawn and dismissed. The first respondent was dismissed from the proceedings by consent.