Ms Alison Roberts v Spandex UK Ltd: 1400597/2017
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 31 July 2020,06 March 2020 |
| Citation | 1400597/2017 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 19 March 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Maternity and Pregnancy Rights |
RESERVED JUDGMENT Case No.1400597/2017
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Ms Alison Roberts
Respondent: Spandex UK Limited
Heard at Bristol On: 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 December 2017
12, 13 December 2017 (in Chambers)
9 January 2018 (in Chambers)
5 February 2018 (in Chambers)
8 August 2019 (in Chambers)
Before Employment Judge Cooksey
Mrs LeVaillant
Mr Williams
Representation
Claimant: Ms A Palmer (counsel)
Respondent: Mr L Harris (counsel)
RESERVED JUDGMENT Case No.1400597/2017
2
JUDGMENT
The Claimant was unfairly constructively dismissed by the Respondent contrary to section
98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996.
The Claimant was unfairly dismissed contrary to section 99 Employment Rights Act 1996. The
principal reason for dismissal was connected with maternity leave.
The Claimant was not discriminated against because of pregnancy or maternity. The
complaints of discrimination brought pursuant to sections 18 and 13 of the Equality Act fail
and are dismissed.
The Claimant was victimised by the Respondent.
The Respondent did not unreasonably fail to comply with a relevant Code of Practice. No
adjustment to compensation shall be made pursuant to section 207A Trade Union & Labour
Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
No order is made for a financial penalty pursuant to section 12A Employment Tribunals Act
1996.
RESERVED JUDGMENT Case No.1400597/2017
3
REASONS
The claim and resistance
1. By a claim form presented on 7.4.2017 the Claimant brought claims of:
1.1 Constructive unfair dismissal
1.2 Automatic unfair dismissal pursuant to section 99 Employment Rights Act 1996
and regulation 20 Maternity & Parental Leave Regulations 1999
1.3 Direct sex discrimination
1.4 Direct pregnancy / maternity discrimination
1.5 Victimisation
1.6 A claim for a fine (section 12A Employment Tribunals Act)
2. In its ET3 and grounds of resistance of 9 May 2017 the Respondent resisted all
complaints brought. The Respondent also disputed the factual premise of certain
complaints brought.
3. On 20 June 2017 the Claimant’s representatives made an application to amend the
grounds of claim. The Respondent did not resist the application and the amendments
were made.
4. On 22 June 2017 there was a telephone case management preliminary hearing before
Employment Judge Pirani. The claims and nature of resistance were identified and
discussed, and orders made for the management of proceedings to hearing. A list of
issues was to be agreed between the parties. The Respondent was given permission
to serve an amended response following amendment to the grounds of complaint and
took the opportunity to do so. Both parties were ordered to provide further particulars
of their respective cases. The Respondent was to provide further particulars as to what
information Mr Watson considered or took into account in rejecting the Claimant for the
role of UK Aftermarket Field Sales Manager (“UK AFSM”). The Claimant was ordered
to provide particulars of her allegation that she was isolated / excluded from the
announcement of her pregnancy, and the allegation that the Respondent failed to
allocate her work from the announcement of her pregnancy.
5. By email of 6 July 2017 the Respondent provided further particulars in respect of
decision making relating to the UK AFSM role (bundle p.92).
6. The Claimant provided the clarification required of her (bundle p.101i) and adopted this
as part of her evidence during supplementary questions in chief. This was to the effect
that after announcing her pregnancy the Claimant had a strong perception that the
atmosphere was different and less friendly towards her from senior management than
previously, that she was included in discussions with management less frequently and
her opinion was not valued as highly as beforehand.
7. On 28 November 2017 there was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge R
Harper. The Claimant wished to call an additional witness, and if that was allowed the
Respondent also wished to call an additional witness. Judge Harper was not convinced
as to the relevance of the additional witness evidence to be called but allowed both to
To continue reading
Request your trial