Mrs Amanda Tonner v Conroy McInnes Solicitors: 4102323/2017
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 April 2018 |
| Citation | 4102323/2017 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 30 January 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case No: 4102323/2017
Held in Glasgow on 23, 24 January, 13 and 16 February 2018
5
Employment Judge: Shona MacLean
Members: Mr Peter O’Hagan
Mr Andrew McFarlane
10
Mrs Amanda Tonner Claimant
Represented by:
Mr S McCluskey
Friend
15
Conroy McInnes Solicitors Respondent
Represented by:
Mr S Smith
20
Solicitor
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
The judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that the claims are dismissed.
REASONS
25
Introduction
1. In the claim form sent to the Tribunal’s office on 4 August 2017 the claimant
complains of unfair dismissal in the way in which the redundancy was dealt
with and an alleged lack of consultation. She also complains that her selection
of redundancy while on maternity leave was discriminatory. The claimant also
30
brings a complaint of associated disability discrimination in terms of Section
13 of the Equality Act 2010 on the basis that her baby was born with severe
Haemophilia. The claimant argues that the respondent treated her less
favourably than it treated or would treat others by selecting her for
redundancy and that the difference in treatment was because of her son’s
35
disability and the fact that the respondent knew she would require to take time
off to look after her son and attend hospital appointments. The claimant also
4102323/17 page 2
made claims in respect of a redundancy payment, notice pay and holiday pay
and time off in lieu in notice
2. In response the respondent said that the claimant was made redundant
because the partnership of Conroy McInnes ended. The respondent denied
5
that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed. The claimant was offered a
full-time position to work with a former partner of Conroy McInnes, Fiona
McKinnon. The claimant declined the offer of full-time employment. It was
denied the claimant had been discriminated against as alleged.
10
3. The claimant withdrew the complaint in respect of failure to pay redundancy
pay which was dismissed.
4. At the start of the hearing Mr Smith explained that the respondent had only
recently instructed him. However, he felt as the claimant was not legally
15
represented it was proper to give notice that during submissions he intended
to address a preliminary issue. Mr Smith explained that the respondent’s
primary position was that the partnership ended in April 2017. The respondent
ceased trading. However, the business was split and that part of the business
where the claimant worked was transferred to Ms McKinnon now trading as
20
McKinnon & Co. The other part of the respondent’s business simultaneously
transferred to Conroy McInnes Limited.
5. Mr Smith confirmed that in addition to representing the respondent he also
acted for Conroy McInnes Limited and McKinnon & Co. He also confirmed
25
that Ms McKinnon, who was instructing him was also giving evidence for the
respondent and would be present throughout and that Alan Conroy would be
attending to give evidence during the hearing. Mr Smith did not make an
application for the respondent to sist any other respondents to the
proceedings.
30
6. Mr McCluskey, the claimant’s representative was invited to discuss matters
with her. In particular whether she wanted to make an application to amend
the claim form to add McKinnon & Co and/or Conroy McInnes Limited as
additional respondents. Mr McCluskey explained that the claimant’s difficulty
35
4102323/17 page 3
was that she did not know what had happened to the respondent and as far
as she believed she continued to be employed by the respondent.
7. As Mr Smith represented all potential respondents, they were all aware of the
proceedings; Ms McKinnon and Mr Conroy were giving evidence; and Ms
5
McKinnon was to be present throughout the Hearing, it was agreed that once
respondent’s evidence had been completed the Tribunal would be willing to
consider any further application the claimant may wish to make in this regard.
8. The Tribunal reiterated the position when the evidence of Ms McKinnon and
10
Mr Conroy concluded on 23 January 2018. The Tribunal also suggested that
the claimant may wish to consider her position after she gave evidence on 13
February 2017 and before the Tribunal heard the parties’ submissions on 16
February 2017. To this end the representatives agreed to exchange their
written submissions before 16 February 2018. Before hearing the
15
submissions Mr McCluskey confirmed to the Tribunal that he had discussed
the matter with the claimant and despite the potential consequences of the
decision she did not wish to amend the claim form to include any other
respondents.
20
9. At the hearing for the respondent the Tribunal heard evidence from Fiona
McKinnon and Alan Conroy. The claimant gave evidence on her own account.
The parties provided joint productions to which the witnesses were referred
during the hearing.
25
10. The Tribunal had to determine the following issues:
a. When was the claimant’s employment terminated?
b. Who employed the claimant on that date?
c. What was the reason for the termination of the claimant’s employment
30
and was dismissal fair in terms of Section 98 of the Employment Rights
Act 1996?
d. Was the claimant treated less favourably (selected for redundancy)
because of her son’s disability?
To continue reading
Request your trial