Claimant v Bridging the Gap (Glasgow) (SCO28657) — 2024

The claimant was employed by the respondent charity on the schools transition programme and went on maternity leave in June 2022. The respondent then sought replacement funding for the programme from Glasgow Community Fund. The application was unsuccessful, and the tribunal found that the loss of that funding meant the work could not continue. The respondent therefore put the four staff working on the programme into redundancy consultation, held meetings in January, February and April 2023, and dismissed the claimant for redundancy on 5 April 2023.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal held the reason for dismissal was redundancy within section 139 ERA 1996. It rejected the claimant's case that the redundancy was manufactured or that the respondent should have looked behind the funding failure. The tribunal found no evidence that the claimant's pregnancy or maternity leave influenced the decision, and it held that the dismissal would have occurred in the same circumstances if she had not been on maternity leave. Applying section 98(4), it found the pool of employees at risk was reasonable, there were no vacancies to offer, there was no duty to bump another employee or create a role, and the consultation process was more than adequate for the size and circumstances of the respondent.

The separate complaint under the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999 also failed. The tribunal held that regulation 10 only required the respondent to offer suitable alternative employment if there was a vacancy, and there was none at the relevant time. It further held that the claimant was not subjected to a detriment for a prohibited reason because the absence of alternative employment was due to the lack of vacancies rather than maternity leave.

The Equality Act claims were dismissed as well. The tribunal held that pregnancy and maternity was not the operative cause of dismissal for the purposes of section 18, and that the evidence did not justify any inference of discrimination. It also rejected the harassment complaints: one because pregnancy and maternity is not a protected characteristic for section 26, and the other because the consultation comment about enhanced maternity pay and maternity cover did not have the prohibited purpose or effect. No monetary award was made because all complaints were dismissed.