Case 8000071/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Members Ms P McColl & Mr A Grant Mrs C McBain v Beaumont PPS Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000071/2024
- Decision date
- 25 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Kearns Tribunal
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- Ms P McColl, Mr A Grant
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Members Ms P McColl & Mr A Grant Mrs C McBain
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs C McBain worked for Beaumont PPS Ltd from 18 June 2018 until 26 October 2023. She took maternity leave from 19 December 2021 to 24 December 2022 and returned to work on 14 February 2023 after annual leave, following a flexible working request that led to her moving from business development manager to business development co-ordinator on reduced days and hours. Her ET1, presented on 23 January 2024, alleged pregnancy/maternity discrimination, sex discrimination and harassment arising from events during maternity leave, on her return, and at the later grievance hearing.
On time bar, the tribunal held that the relevant limitation period for the ET1 ran from 10 October 2023, so earlier acts were out of time unless part of conduct extending over a period. Applying section 123(3)(a) Equality Act 2010, Hendricks and South Western Ambulance, it found the post-10 October 2023 complaints were not discriminatory, so they could not be linked to earlier allegations as a continuing act. It also refused to extend time on the just and equitable basis: the claimant knew her rights and the limitation rules, had consulted a cousin who was head of HR, and although her initial reluctance was understandable, the tribunal found that by early May 2023 those reasons were no longer operative and the respondent would be prejudiced by the delay.
On the merits, the tribunal found that Mr Lawrie's 19 October 2023 grievance-hearing discussion about whether enhanced maternity pay should be treated as a bonus was professional, calm and measured and did not amount to less favourable treatment or harassment. It also found that the pay-rise issue was a genuine calculation error that was later corrected, the bank holiday issue was another pro-rating error, and the email exchange with Mr McBain about commission was not motivated by the claimant's sex. The tribunal therefore dismissed the pregnancy/maternity discrimination, sex discrimination and harassment claims in full.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The section 18 allegations concerned the 18 October 2022 return-to-work discussion, a comment that she 'wouldn't be that stupid' about having children, exclusion from the Christmas event, and denial of pay rise and bonus during maternity leave. The tribunal held the pre-10 October 2023 matters were out of time, refused a just and equitable extension, and found the 19 October 2023 grievance-hearing comment about enhanced maternity pay was not discriminatory. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | The section 13 allegations concerned the instruction not to discuss her child with her husband, the permanent contract variation and bank holiday entitlement, the enhanced maternity pay/bonus remark, and the email exchange with Mr McBain about commission. The tribunal held the relevant acts were out of time or, where addressed on the merits, were not because of sex. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The section 26 complaint was that Mr Lawrie said at the 19 October 2023 grievance hearing that enhanced maternity pay should be seen as a bonus. The tribunal found the discussion was professional, calm and measured, and did not satisfy the statutory threshold for harassment. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- conduct extending over a period
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2003] IRLR 96 CA
- South Western Ambulance NHS Foundation Trust v King [2020] IRLR 168
- just and equitable extension of time
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.