Case 4104412/2020 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case no 4104412/2020 (V) Held remotely on 9, and February 2021 Employment Judge W A Meiklejohn Tribunal Member Ms F Paton Tribunal Member Mr J Burnett Mrs S Saine v Represented by: Mr R Clarke – Solicitor Twechar Community Action — 2021
- Case reference
- 4104412/2020
- Decision date
- 27 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Susan Walker
- Panel members
- Ms F Paton, Mr J Burnett
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case no 4104412/2020 (V) Held remotely on 9, and February 2021 Employment Judge W A Meiklejohn Tribunal Member Ms F Paton Tribunal Member Mr J Burnett Mrs S Saine
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs S Saine worked for Twechar Community Action as Employability and Training Officer from 1 July 2016. The tribunal found that her role did not change when the Big Lottery Fund wellbeing project began in 2019, and that by October 2018 no further DWP employability funding had been secured. She told Mrs Sutton on 17 March 2020 that she was pregnant; after lockdown she was asked to work from home on the UCTF application, and on 31 March 2020 the DWP suspended that funding process. The tribunal held that the claimant's exclusion from the 31 March staff meeting and the furlough arrangements were not unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy in the circumstances it found.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under s.99 ERA 1996; the tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy, not because of pregnancy. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal under ss.94 and 98 ERA 1996; the redundancy process was held to be unfair. The judgment's formal award is £1,155.40, although the remedy narrative contains intermediate figures that do not fully reconcile arithmetically. | Upheld | — | £1,155 |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Claim under s.18 EqA 2010 and s.39(2)(c) and (d) EqA; the tribunal held the complained-of treatment was not because of pregnancy and that the respondent had rebutted any inference of discrimination. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,155
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £16
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,140
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.99 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.139(1)(b) ERA 1996
- Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd
- Safeway Stores plc v Burrell
- s.18 EqA 2010
- s.136 EqA 2010
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- O'Donoghue v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council
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.