Dr S Singh and Ms N Elliot Ms Aroosa Tabasam v Represented by: Mr W McParland - Solicitor NAV Forecourts Limited and 2 others — 2024

The tribunal found that the respondents genuinely held performance concerns about the claimant, including issues raised about uniform, Challenge 25, bunker checks, a till shortage, a drive-off on 31 July 2023, and other customer/service matters. It accepted that the claimant had previously been taken off the rota briefly in February 2023 over performance issues, but was put back on the rota shortly afterwards. It did not accept that the respondents knew the claimant was pregnant before they decided to dismiss her.

On that basis, the pregnancy discrimination claim under section 18 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed, as were the section 47(c) ERA detriment claim and the section 99 ERA automatically unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal held that the alleged detriments largely pre-dated any knowledge of pregnancy. As to the letter sent on 14 August 2023, the tribunal agreed that the respondents had mischaracterised it as an appeal, but found there was no actual appeal to reject; in any event, the dismissal decision remained grounded in the respondents' performance concerns rather than any pregnancy-related reason.

The claim under section 11 ERA 1996 for failure to provide written particulars was dismissed. The tribunal accepted the evidence of Ms Rogers that the claimant was given a contract of employment and that wage slips were regularly handed to staff with their pay. By contrast, the tribunal did not accept that the claimant had received the final wage slip or payment of holiday pay said to be due on 31 August 2023. It found that holiday pay of £298.22 had accrued on termination and that this claim under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 succeeded, with quantum to be dealt with at the remedy hearing if not agreed.

The wrongful dismissal claim also succeeded. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had been summarily dismissed without notice, but it was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondents had proved a repudiatory breach of contract by the claimant. The tribunal said it could not make specific factual findings from the documentary evidence sufficient to conclude that the claimant's conduct amounted to conduct justifying summary dismissal. The unlawful deduction from wages complaint was not determined at the merits hearing and was left to a separate hearing alongside remedy.