Case 4102323/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Members: Mr Peter O’Hagan Mr Andrew McFarlane Mrs Amanda Tonner v Represented by: Mr S McCluskey Friend Conroy McInnes Solicitors — 2018
- Case reference
- 4102323/2017
- Decision date
- 13 April 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shona MacLean
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- Mr Peter O'Hagan, Mr Andrew McFarlane
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Members: Mr Peter O’Hagan Mr Andrew McFarlane Mrs Amanda Tonner
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as a legal secretary by the respondent partnership and was based at the Carntyne office. She became pregnant in 2016 and later went on maternity leave. The tribunal found that on 18 April 2017 the Carntyne litigation practice transferred to Fiona McKinnon trading as McKinnon & Co, while the Shawlands conveyancing practice transferred to Conroy McInnes Limited. It held that the claimant had been permanently based at Carntyne and would have transferred with that part of the undertaking under TUPE.
The tribunal found that the claimant's employment did not end when the partnership dissolved on 17 April 2017. It held that, at most, she had been told in March 2017 that her position was at risk, and that the first effective communication that her employment had ended was the letter of 2 June 2017. By that date the tribunal held that her employment had already transferred to McKinnon & Co, so the claims had been brought against the wrong respondent.
On the merits, the tribunal accepted that Ms McKinnon offered the claimant the full-time secretarial post first and understood from the claimant's reply that she was not interested in taking it. It found no evidence that the termination decision was because the claimant was on maternity leave or because of her son's disability. The tribunal also held that Regulation 10 of the maternity regulations was complied with because the claimant was given priority for the vacancy. It therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, pregnancy/maternity discrimination and payment claims, and recorded that the redundancy payment complaint had been withdrawn. No remedy was awarded against the respondent.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant's employment transferred under TUPE to McKinnon & Co on 18 April 2017 and that the respondent was not her employer on 2 June 2017, when it found the employment ended. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claim was based on the claimant's son having Haemophilia A. The tribunal found no evidence that the redundancy/termination decision was because of that disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The claim concerned selection for redundancy while the claimant was on maternity leave. The tribunal found she was offered the full-time vacancy first and held that the maternity vacancy protection was complied with. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Redundancy | The claimant withdrew this complaint at the hearing. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | This covered the notice pay / payment-in-lieu issue discussed in the judgment, which also referred to the Deduction from Wages (Limitation) Regulations 2014. The tribunal dismissed it against the respondent because it was not the employer at termination. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay was discussed as one of the termination-payment issues. The tribunal noted a figure of £436.26 in the respondent's calculations, but made no award against the respondent. |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.95(1)(a) ERA 1996
- s.98 ERA 1996
- TUPE Regulation 3
- TUPE Regulation 4
- TUPE Regulation 7
- s.139 ERA 1996
- Cheesman v R Brewer Contracts Ltd
- Regulation 10 Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999
- Deduction from Wages (Limitation) Regulations 2014
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.