Srivastava v Unico Clinics Ltd — 2023

The claimant was employed as a clinic manager from 15 August 2021. The business's finances deteriorated during 2022, her hours reduced from May 2022, and she notified her pregnancy in November 2022 before confirming maternity leave dates in January and February 2023. A dispute developed in March 2023 about statutory maternity pay and holiday pay calculations, and the claimant said the respondent's handling of those issues amounted to pregnancy and maternity discrimination.

The tribunal dismissed the pregnancy and maternity discrimination complaint. It accepted that both the claimant and Jas Gill were concerned the business might not have sufficient funds to pay maternity pay, and found that Jas Gill's suggestion that the claimant resign and claim maternity pay from HMRC was not unfavourable treatment in the circumstances. The tribunal held that the reason for the proposal was the financial position of the business, not the claimant's pregnancy or maternity leave.

The tribunal also dismissed the holiday pay complaint. It found that the claimant had originally been employed for 32 hours over three days each week, but that from May 2022 her hours reduced to an average of 18 hours over three days each week. On that basis, her holiday entitlement had to be pro-rated to the reduced hours, so payment based on 6 hours per day was correct and no unlawful deduction from wages arose. As both complaints failed, no remedy was awarded and the tribunal did not need to decide the current employer issue.