Case 4102792/2016 · Employment Tribunal
Members: Mr IC MacFarlane Ms N Bakshi Ms Rosalynn Robertson v Represented by: Mr S Healey Solicitor Blue Sky Autism Project and 4 others — 2017
- Case reference
- 4102792/2016
- Decision date
- 20 April 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shona MacLean
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- Mr IC MacFarlane, Ms N Bakshi, Ms Rosalynn Robertson
Parties
6 namedClaimant
Members: Mr IC MacFarlane Ms N Bakshi Ms Rosalynn Robertson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Robertson was employed by the first respondent on a fixed-term contract from 1 March 2015 as a trainee developmental/behavioural therapist. The tribunal found that the first respondent was a small charity dependent on client income and grant funding, that the claimant told the second respondent she was pregnant in late July 2015, and that her hours were later reduced and then the claimant was offered a further fixed-term contract on 9 December 2015, subject to completing PRT Level 2 fidelity. The claimant later brought forward her maternity leave after advising that she was no longer fit for work.
The tribunal rejected the automatic unfair dismissal case under ss.99 and 104 ERA 1996 and the pregnancy discrimination claim under s.18 EqA 2010. It found that in January 2016 the first respondent had been advised to reduce labour costs, that the claimant's contract was simply the next fixed-term contract due for renewal, and that the non-renewal was caused by limited funding, reduced client numbers and the need to cut costs. It accepted that the dispute over paid antenatal time off was about the amount payable rather than entitlement to attend, and that there was no basis for finding that pregnancy, maternity leave or assertion of a statutory right affected the decision.
The direct sex discrimination claim was withdrawn during submissions, although the final order nonetheless records sex discrimination as dismissed. On the contractual issue, the tribunal held that the payment covering 18 to 22 January 2016 was an ex gratia or goodwill payment linked to the claimant starting maternity leave early, not one week's notice pay. It therefore found the first respondent in breach of contract for failing to pay notice and ordered payment of £184.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under ss.99 and 104 ERA 1996; the tribunal found the non-renewal was driven by funding and client reductions and the need to cut labour costs, not by maternity leave or antenatal time off. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Claim under s.18 EqA 2010; the tribunal held that the claimant's pregnancy, maternity leave and antenatal appointments had no bearing on the decision not to renew the fixed-term contract. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination claim was withdrawn during submissions; the final order nonetheless records sex discrimination as dismissed. | Withdrawn | Sex | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the payment for 18 to 22 January 2016 was an ex gratia/goodwill payment linked to early maternity leave, not notice pay, and ordered payment of one week's notice pay of £184. | Upheld | — | £184 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £184
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.99 ERA 1996
- s.104 ERA 1996
- s.18 EqA 2010
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.