Case 4104568/2022 · Employment Tribunal
; Members Mr R McPherson and Mr V Alexander Ms A McKnight v Represented by: Mr B McKinlay - Trainee Solicitor F Limited and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 4104568/2022
- Decision date
- 15 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Campbell
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- Mr R McPherson, Mr V Alexander
Parties
3 namedClaimant
; Members Mr R McPherson and Mr V Alexander Ms A McKnight
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Ms McKnight was employed continuously by WBI Limited from 15 November 2020 to 20 May 2022, first at Word Up and later at Fenwick/Fenwick Tapas in Greenock. It accepted that WBI recruited her, paid her, seconded her to Fenwick and remained her employer throughout; there was no evidence that her employer changed when she moved sites.
The tribunal found that WBI became aware of her pregnancy in the last week of January 2022. From the end of March 2022 she was given noticeably fewer shifts despite saying she was available, and the tribunal upheld both the section 47C ERA detriment complaint and the section 18 EqA pregnancy complaint on the basis that she was offered fewer shifts because of her pregnancy and was not properly engaged with about accommodating the pregnancy, maternity leave and maternity pay.
It also found that she was dismissed because of her pregnancy after trying to contact HR about maternity leave and pay. When she spoke to Ms Lynsey Penman on 20 May 2022 she was told she had been "P45'd", and the tribunal treated that as dismissal. It held the dismissal was automatically unfair under section 99 ERA 1996 and found no other reason such as performance or conduct. The tribunal further found that she had not been given a compliant written statement of terms and conditions during employment, although a document in the bundle had only been shown to her later during settlement discussions.
On remedy, the tribunal awarded £9,900 for injury to feelings, applying the lower Vento band, with interest at 8% from 20 May 2022; £5,465.12 for unfair dismissal, comprising £2,006.13 past loss and £3,458.99 future loss; and an additional £591.28 under section 38 ERA 1996, equal to four weeks' pay, with interest at 8% from the date of judgment. It also noted that, but for the dismissal, she would likely have continued working until 23 August 2022 and would have qualified for statutory maternity pay.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Section 47C ERA 1996 detriment claim upheld on the same facts as the pregnancy-related treatment: fewer shifts despite availability and inadequate engagement about maternity leave and pay. | Upheld | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Section 18 EqA 2010 pregnancy claim upheld for being offered fewer shifts and not being properly engaged about accommodating the pregnancy; the £9,900 injury to feelings award was not split between this finding and the s47C detriment finding. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatically unfair dismissal under sections 99(1) and 99(3)(a) ERA 1996 because the reason was pregnancy; the award comprised £2,006.13 past loss and £3,458.99 future loss. | Upheld | — | £5,465 |
| Other | Section 38 ERA 1996 written statement complaint upheld; the tribunal awarded four weeks' pay because no compliant statement was provided during employment. | Upheld | — | £591 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,956
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £5,465
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 47C ERA 1996
- section 18 EqA 2010
- section 99(1) and 99(3)(a) ERA 1996
- section 1 ERA 1996
- section 38 ERA 1996
- Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No 2)
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.