In the case of Ms T Donaldson v H Greenhalf T/A Roundhills Kennels & Cattery: 2402454/2019 the Employment Tribunal found that a pregnant employee had been dismissed because of her pregnancy, and not because of a redundancy situation (the argument that her former employer had made).
The facts in Ms T Donaldson v H Greenhalf T/A Roundhills Kennels & Cattery
Ms Donaldson commenced employment with Roundhills Kennels & Cattery on 4 June 2018 as a part-time kennel cleaner.
On 12 October 2018 Ms Donaldson met with Ms Greenhalf and they had a general conversation about work-related matters. At the end of this meeting Ms Donaldson also informed Ms Greenhalf that she was pregnant.
On 15 October 2018 Ms Donaldson was called to a meeting with Helan Greenhalf and her partner Mr Robert Rose and she was told that they were going to have to cancel a lot of dog kennel bookings, and that they would therefore be able to deal with the work alone. They then informed Ms Donaldson that her services would no longer be required, and that her employment would therefore be terminated. Ms Donaldson was not informed that she could appeal her dismissal and she did not receive a letter confirming her dismissal.
On 6 November 2018 Ms Donaldson wrote to Ms Greenhalf appealing against the decision to dismiss her and seeking confirmation of the reasons why she had been dismissed.
On 21 November 2018, Ms Donaldson received a reply from Roundhills Kennels & Cattery stating she was ‘no longer required’ and no mention of redundancy was made.
Ms Donaldson subsequently issued claims for automatic unfair dismissal, pregnancy discrimination, breach of contract, and unlawful deduction from wages.
The decision of the Employment Tribunal
Automatic unfair dismissal
The Employment Tribunal held that the principal reason for Ms Donaldson’s dismissal was her pregnancy, and rejected Ms Greenhalf’s argument that she had not known about Ms Donaldson’s pregnancy when choosing to dismiss her. The Tribunal therefore found that Ms Donaldson had been automatically unfairly dismissed.
Read more about the law on unfair dismissal here
Pregnancy discrimination
The Tribunal further held that Ms Donaldson had been discriminated against because of her pregnancy when she was dismissed.
Read more about the law on pregnancy discrimination here
Unfair dismissal
The Employment Tribunal held that they did not have jurisdiction to hear Ms Donaldson’s claim for ‘normal’ unfair dismissal, as she did not have the requisite two years’ continuous employment.
Our lawyers’ views on the case
Steve Norton, an advanced paralegal at Redmans commented on the case: “Employers should ensure that their workplace is accommodating to, and safe for, pregnant employees. A failure to ensure that pregnant employees are treated fairly and equally to other employees, and a failure to undertake the due consideration for a pregnant employee’s safety, could lead to a potential claim in the Employment Tribunal.”
The decision of the Employment Tribunal in Ms T Donaldson v H Greenhalf T/A Roundhills Kennels & Cattery: 2402454/2019 can be found here.
About
Redmans Employment Team deal with employment matters for both employers and employees, including drafting employment contracts and policies, advising employers and employees on compromise agreements, handling day-to-day HR issues, advising on restructures, and handling Employment Tribunal cases for both employers and employees Call 020 3397 3603 to speak to one of the members of our employment team or email us on enquiries@redmans.co.uk. Redmans have offices in Richmond, Chiswick, Hammersmith, Fulham, Kingston, Wimbledon, Ealing, Kings Cross and Marylebone (meetings strictly by appointment only).
- Web |
- More Posts(1158)