Ms Yan Yan Yung v First Recruitment Ltd — 2026

Ms Yan Yan Yung worked for First Recruitment Ltd as an HR assistant from 15 August 2022 and was assigned to its client 4PX/Caiano in Leicester. She began pregnancy and maternity leave on 18 September 2023. Following a takeover and reorganisation, the client decided in about July 2024 that it needed only one of its two HR assistants in Leicester and chose to retain the other worker. The tribunal found that First Recruitment had no involvement in that decision. The client was not a party to the proceedings, and the tribunal made no finding about why it chose the other worker. Ms Yung's maternity leave ended on 15 September 2024, and First Recruitment dismissed her for redundancy on 8 October 2024.

The tribunal found that redundancy was the actual reason for dismissal: the client's reduced requirement for HR staff left Ms Yung surplus to requirements at that location. It accepted that accounts manager Mr Adris Mohammed sought alternative work for her with the client and elsewhere. It found that pregnancy and maternity leave had no conscious or unconscious effect on First Recruitment's decision. The automatic unfair dismissal claim based on the reason for dismissal therefore failed. Dismissal was unfavourable treatment, but the pregnancy and maternity discrimination claim also failed because that treatment was not because of pregnancy or maternity leave.

The alternative automatic unfair dismissal ground under regulation 10 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999 also failed. The available HR assistant roles were a permanent position in Dunstable and about two months of maternity cover in Daventry. For regulation 10 purposes, the tribunal found it reasonable for First Recruitment to regard Dunstable as suitable because the job and terms were the same, and the commute could reasonably be considered acceptable. It offered that role before dismissal, and the tribunal inferred that Ms Yung received preference over employees who were not on maternity leave. Her refusal did not defeat compliance with regulation 10. The employer reasonably regarded the temporary Daventry role as unsuitable, and there were no other suitable available vacancies.

The ordinary unfair dismissal claim succeeded. First Recruitment had not considered or consulted about the selection pool, instead treating Ms Yung as the sole employee at risk because the client did not want her back. A reasonable employer would have considered alternatives, including redeployment or bumping, and consultation could not be treated as utterly futile. The respondent also decided to dismiss before the meeting arranged to discuss that decision, removing an opportunity to consider final proposals to avoid redundancy. Although some consultation and efforts to find work had taken place, they did not cure these defects. In assessing ordinary unfair dismissal, the tribunal found Ms Yung's rejection of Dunstable reasonable given the longer journey, childcare commitments and lack of flexible working. Daventry was unsuitable because it was temporary.