Mrs J Patel v Elbi Digital Ltd: 2200334/2019
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 December 2019 |
| Citation | 2200334/2019 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 31 December 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
Case Numbers: 2200334/2019
- 1 -
sb
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant Respondents
Mrs J Patel AND Elbi Digital Limited
Heard at: London Central On: 2 - 6 December 2019
Before: Employment Judge Brown
Members: Ms T Breslin
Mr D Clay
Representation
For the Claimant: Ms B Patel, Husband/Representative
For the Respondent: Mr S Bellm, Solicitor
JUDGMENT
The unanimous Judgment of the Tribunal is that:
1. The Claimant’s claims of discrimination because of pregnancy and
maternity fail.
2. The Claimant’s claims of victimisation fail.
3. The Respondent did not dismiss the Claimant unfairly.
REASONS
Preliminary
1. The Claimant brings complaints of pregnancy and maternity discrimination,
victimisation and unfair dismissal against the Respondent, her former employer.
2. The parties had agreed a List of Issues as follows:
2.1. Time Limits / Limitation Issues
Case Numbers: 2200334/2019
- 2 -
Were all of the complaints presented within the time limits set out in
sections 123 of the Equality Act 2010 (“EQA”). Dealing with this issue
may involve consideration of subsidiary issues including: whether there
was an act and/or conduct extending over a period, and/or a series of
similar acts or failures and whether time should be extended on a “just
and equitable” basis.
2.2. Unfair dismissal
2.2.1. What was the principal reason for dismissal and was it a potentially
fair one in accordance with sections 98(1) and (2) of the Employment
Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”)? The respondent asserts that it was for
redundancy.
2.2.2. If so, was the dismissal fair or unfair in accordance with ERA
section 98(4) and were the principles in Williams v Compair Maxam
Ltd 1982 IRLR 83 followed, including whether there was any or
sufficient consultation, whether the claimant was offered any suitable
alternative employment, whether there was fair selection and whether
there was a genuine redundancy situation.
2.3. EQA, section 19: Pregnancy and Maternity Discrimination
2.3.1. Did the respondent treat the claimant unfavourably as follows:
2.3.1.1. The Claimant’s role of Head of Operations and Finance
being given to Mr R Moore with the title of Loveshop General
Manager?
2.3.1.2. The use of her maternity cover, Mr Moore, reducing her role.
2.3.1.3. Making her role redundant.
2.3.1.4. Lack of consultation.
2.3.1.5. Giving Mr Moore a role which should have been offered to
her as suitable alternative employment. The claimant’s case is
that she was not given the opportunity to apply for the role.
2.3.1.6. Not dealing with the claimant’s grievance in fair manner by
failing to comply with the ACAS Code, the grievance officer Ms
Vivian Taylor was the subject of the grievance and was the
decision maker and the HR Advisor dealt with both the grievance
and the appeal and was not impartial – Mr Robin Hall. The
claimant’s case is that no investigation took place. The appeal
officer was also said to be the subject of the grievance (Mr Derek
Gannon) and there was a failure to comply with the grievance
policy.
2.3.1.7. The claimant’s grievance was shared with Mr Moore and Mr
Askew which she relies on as a breach of trust and confidence
as an act of discrimination.
2.3.1.8. The respondents sought to avoid the protections of the
Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations – Regulation 10 by
delaying the redundancy process.
To continue reading
Request your trial