Ms D Kalotra v Cisilion Ltd and Craige Winter-Nolan: 2302473/2020
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 April 2022 |
| Date | 13 April 2022 |
| Citation | 2302473/2020 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 12 May 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
Case No: 2302473/2020
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Ms D Kalotra
Respondents: (1) Cisilion Limited
(2) Craige Winter-Nolan
Heard on: 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th March 2022 by CVP
In chambers on 31st March 2022
Before: Employment Judge Pritchard
Members: Mr R Shaw
Mr R Singh
Representation
Claimant: Mr A Rozycki, counsel
Respondents: Mr J Frater, consultant
RESERVED JUDGMENT
It is the unanimous decision of the Tribunal that:
1. The Claimant’s claim of pregnancy / maternity discrimination is dismissed.
2. The Claimant’s claim of detriment on grounds of pregnancy / maternity is
dismissed.
3. The Claimant’s claim for unfair constructive dismissal is not-well founded
and the claim is dismissed.
4. The Claimant’s equal pay claim is dismissed.
5. The Claimant’s claim for deductions from wages is dismissed upon
withdrawal.
REASONS
1. The Claimant claims constructive unfair dismissal, pregnancy and
maternity discrimination, detriment because of pregnancy and maternity
and equal pay. The Respondents resist the claims.
Case No: 2302473/2020
2. The Tribunal heard evidence from the Claimant and from Richard Heath
(former employee of the First Respondent) on her behalf. On the
Respondent’s behalf the Tribunal heard evidence from: Rachel Ward-
Miller (Head of Human Resources); Nicholas Paul (Sales Director); and
Craige Winter-Nolan (Head of New Business and Second Respondent).
The Tribunal was provided with four bundles of documents to which the
parties variously referred. Further documents were added during the
course of the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing the parties orally
amplified their written submissions.
Issues
3. The Claimant’s application to amend her claim to include further
allegations in support of her constructive dismissal claim was granted.
The parties thereafter provided the Tribunal with a list of issues which,
following discussion with the parties and subsequent clarification during
the course of the hearing, can be stated as follows:
S18 EQA – Pregnancy/Maternity Discrimination
4. Did the Respondent(s) discriminate against the Claimant by treating her
unfavourably because of her pregnancy in the protected period in relation
to her pregnancy.
5. Alternatively, did the Respondent(s) discriminate against the Claimant
because she either was exercising, sought to exercise or had exercised
the right to ordinary or additional maternity leave?
6. The protected period was from May 2019 until 17 February 2020 (the
Claimant returned to work on 18 February 2020).
7. The Claimant contends that the First Respondent discriminated by:
a) In May 2019, upon announcing her pregnancy, having her commission
rate reduced by Nicholas Paul (sales manager) from 11% to 8.3%;
b) On 16th September 2019, being contacted by the Second Respondent
and asked to ‘justify her salary’ and the other comments made, namely:
• “I’m trying to constructively manage you back into the business”
• “Back in January/February when you return to work from Maternity
Leave, you expect all your accounts back”
• “You expect the business to fall at their knees when you return to
work”
• You get £50k a year, what are you doing or going to do whilst at
home?”
c) In September 2019, the Second Respondent attempting unilaterally to
change her job role from Account Director to Business Development
Manager;
d) Not being paid her commission despite 50% YTD being achieved; (The
deleted aspect of this allegation was withdrawn by the Claimant during
the hearing).
To continue reading
Request your trial