Case 4103696/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Malwina Kulak v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 4103696/2022
- Decision date
- 31 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S MacLean
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Miss Malwina Kulak
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Malwina Kulak brought claims arising from the termination of her employment as a receptionist at Art Hot Ltd t/a Artto Hotel. The tribunal recorded that she started work on 4 April 2022 and that her employment was terminated on 16 May 2022, with the respondent saying the termination was because of conduct and unwillingness to work the shift pattern required by the business. The claimant did not tell anyone at work that she was pregnant before the dismissal decision was taken and communicated.
The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider unfair dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 or any failure to pay a redundancy payment because the claimant had less than two years' continuous service. It also noted that the claimant had not brought a separate notice pay complaint and that her final payslip included holiday pay due on termination.
On the pregnancy discrimination claim, the tribunal applied section 18 of the Equality Act 2010. It accepted that the claimant was dismissed during the protected period, but found there was no evidence that the respondent knew about her pregnancy or that any absence was related to a pregnancy-related illness. The tribunal also noted evidence of earlier concerns about her conduct and attitude to late shifts and weekends, and was not satisfied that the claimant had proved facts from which discrimination could be inferred.
Having reached that conclusion, the tribunal did not go on to consider remedy. The judgment therefore dismissed all claims under rule 47.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant had less than two years' continuous service, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Dismissed under section 18 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant proved facts from which it could conclude, in the absence of an adequate explanation, that the respondent dismissed her because of pregnancy or a pregnancy-related illness. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed because the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to consider any claim for redundancy payment given the claimant's less than two years' continuous service. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 18 Equality Act 2010
- balance of probabilities
- rule 47 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.