Mrs Lorraine Jackson v Advance Building Contracts Ltd: S/4102389/2017
| Judgment Date | 12 March 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
| Published date | 20 February 2019 |
| Date | 12 March 2018 |
| Citation | S/4102389/2017 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
E.T. Z4 (WR)
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case No: S/4102389/17
5
Held at Glasgow on 18 and 19 December 2017
Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn
Members: Mr G Noble
Mr P Kelman
10
Mrs Lorraine Jackson Claimant
Represented by:
15
Mr R Bradley -
Advocate
20
Advance Building Contracts Limited Respondents
Represented by:
Mr P Santoni –
Solicitor
25
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
The unanimous Judgment of the Employment Tribunal is as follows:–
30
(a) the Claimant was dismissed by the Respondents by reason of redundancy;
(b) that dismissal was unfair;
(c) the Respondents are ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of FIVE
35
HUNDRED POUNDS (£500.00) by way of compensatory award;
(d) the Claimant’s claim under section 18 of the Equality Act 2010 fails and is
dismissed; and
40
S/4102389/17 Page 2
(e) regulation 10 of the Maternity & Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999 does
not apply in this case.
REASONS
5
1. The Claimant pursued the following claims:-
• Was her dismissal automatically unfair because it was by reason of
her pregnancy having regard to the terms of Section 99 of the
10
Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”) and Regulation 20 of the
Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999 (the
“Regulations”)?
• In the alternative, was her dismissal unfair in terms of section 98 ERA?
15
• Did her dismissal constitute unfavourable treatment in terms of Section
18 of the Equality Act 2010 (“EqA”)?
20
• Had the Respondents acted in breach of regulation 10 of the
Regulations by failing to offer the Claimant a suitable available
vacancy at an associated employer, namely Advance Construction
(Scotland) Limited (“ACS”) in circumstances where, but for her
summary unfair dismissal, such vacancy would have occurred after
25
the commencement of her ordinary maternity leave?
2. The Respondents admitted dismissal but otherwise resisted these claims.
They argued that the Regulations had not been engaged because the
Respondents had dismissed the Claimant before the commencement of her
30
ordinary maternity leave.
To continue reading
Request your trial