Case 4110763/2021 · Employment Tribunal
A Kemp Tribunal Member: E Coyle Tribunal Member: P Fallow Ms V Stewart v Allied Healthcare Group Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4110763/2021
- Decision date
- 27 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr
- Panel members
- E Coyle, P Fallow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
A Kemp Tribunal Member: E Coyle Tribunal Member: P Fallow Ms V Stewart
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Victoria Stewart worked for Allied Healthcare Ltd as a care worker from 18 September 2018 and began maternity leave on 21 February 2020. The tribunal accepted her evidence that she intended to take the full period of ordinary and additional maternity leave, and found the form completed by the branch manager was ambiguous and contradictory. It also found that the respondent did not write to her to notify the date on which her maternity leave would end, contrary to regulation 7 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999.
The tribunal found a pattern of failed communication when the claimant tried to arrange her return to work in January and March 2021. It accepted that she emailed on 29 March 2021 saying she intended to return but needed to discuss part-time hours, and it rejected the respondent's case about an unreceived April email. Sending a P45 on or about 7 May 2021, received by the claimant on 9 May 2021, was treated as a dismissal. The tribunal held that the respondent had not proved a potentially fair reason for dismissal or any some other substantial reason, and that the dismissal was unfair under section 98 and automatically unfair under section 99 because of the maternity-leave protections.
The section 92 claim for written reasons failed because the tribunal did not find a sufficiently clear request for reasons. On remedy, it awarded a basic award of £668.88 based on three weeks' pay at £222.96, and a compensatory award of £4,914.00 for losses continuing until 6 December 2021, when the claimant started new part-time work. It also awarded £1,000 under the head of injury to feelings, inclusive of interest, at the low end of the lower Vento band, producing a total award of £6,582.88. The tribunal noted that the award was subject to the recoupment regime, with a prescribed element of £4,914.00.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed under sections 98 and 99 ERA 1996. It held the respondent had not proved a potentially fair reason or any some other substantial reason, and also found an automatic unfair dismissal because the respondent had not complied with regulation 7 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999. | Upheld | — | £6,583 |
| Other | Claim under section 92 ERA 1996 for failure to provide written reasons for dismissal. The tribunal held there had not been a sufficiently clear request for written reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,583
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £669
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £4,914
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.99 ERA 1996
- Regulation 7 Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999
- Regulation 20 Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999
- s.92 ERA 1996
- Vento guidelines
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.