Dr Emma Lahert v Proteome Sciences plc and Proteome Sciences R&D GmBh & Co. KG: 2200591/2019
| Judgment Date | 14 November 2019 |
| Citation | 2200591/2019 |
| Published date | 04 December 2019 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Contract of Employment |
Case Number: 2200591/2019
1.
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
BETWEEN
Claimant AND Respondents
Dr Emma Lahert (1) Proteome Sciences Plc
(2) Proteome Sciences R&D GmBh & CO KG
Heard at: London Central Employment Tribunal
On: 22, 23, 24, 25 October 2019 (and in chambers on 26 October)
Before: Employment Judge Adkin
Mr G Bishop
Mr D Clay
Representations
For the Claimant: Ms L Bell, Counsel
For the Respondent: Ms H McLorinan, Counsel
JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Tribunal is as follows:
1) The following claims are dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant:
Case Number: 2200591/2019
2.
i) Breach of Section 1 Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA), giving rise to
compensation pursuant to Section 38 Employment Act 2002. This claim
was withdrawn on the first day of the hearing and is dismissed;
ii) Indirect discrimination because of gender (which includes maternity and
pregnancy) under s19(1) and 39 EQA. This claim was withdrawn during
the Claimant’s closing submissions and is dismissed;
2) The following claims brought against the First and Second Respondents fail
and are dismissed:
i) Detriment arising out of a contravention of Section 47 (c) ERA (arising
out of Regulation 19 of the Maternity & Parental Leave ETC Regulations
1999 (MPL));
ii) Ordinary unfair dismissal under Sections 94 and 98 ERA;
iii) Automatic unfair dismissal under Section 99 ERA (arising out of
Regulation 20 of MPL);
iv) Automatic unfair dismissal under Regulation 7 of Transfer of
Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE);
v) Failure to elect employee representatives and/or to inform and consult
pursuant to Regulations 13 and 14 of TUPE giving rise to an award
under under Regulation 15 of TUPE;
vi) Direct discrimination because of gender and/or maternity and pregnancy
under Sections 13(1), 18 and 39 Equality Act 2010 (EQA);
vii) Harassment in contravention of Section 26 EQA because of gender;
viii)Victimisation in contravention of Section 27 EQA because of gender
and/or maternity and pregnancy.
REASONS
1. By a claim presented on 20 February 2019, the Claimant brought claims
arising out of her employment with the First Respondent and the
termination of her employment for redundancy on 20 January 2019.
2. As result of an amendment allowed by the Employment Tribunal on the
first day of the final hearing, the Claimant brought a claim against the
Second Respondent on the basis of an alleged transfer under The
Case Number: 2200591/2019
3.
Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006
(“TUPE”).
The Issues
3. The issues in this case were agreed before the hearing commenced as
follows (R denotes First Respondent; C denotes Claimant):
5. TUPE
5.1. Did R propose outsourcing C's role to an associated employer based
in Frankfurt within the meaning of Regulation 3 of TUPE, as set out in
writing in the slide referenced at paragraph 20.1 of the particulars of
claim or otherwise;
5.2. Did R act breach of Regulations 13 & 14 TUPE in respect of C?;
5.3. Was C dismissed because of said proposed relevant transfer;
5.4. If so, was C's dismissal automatically unfair in contravention of
Regulation 7 TUPE.
5.5. If not, did R outsource C’s role to an associated employer based in
Frankfurt within the meaning of Regulation 3 of TUPE?
5.6. If so, did R act breach of Regulations 13 & 14 TUPE in respect of C?;
5.7. If so, was C's dismissal automatically unfair in contravention of
Regulation 7 TUPE, or alternatively was the sole or principal reason
for the dismissal an economic, technical or organisational reason
entailing changes in the workforce?
6. Detriment pursuant to Section 47 (C) ERA / Reg 19 MPL
6.1. Did R have knowledge that C had had a miscarriage, had been
undergoing IVF and/or was pregnant before placing her at risk of
redundancy;
6.2. When did R have knowledge of C's pregnancy?
6.3. Was C subjected to an unlawful detriment(s) by any act of R done for
a prescribed reason related to her pregnancy/ her seeking to take
maternity leave/ her taking or seeking to take parental leave? The
detriments relied on at this time are:
(1) Placing C in a selection pool of one;
To continue reading
Request your trial