Ms A Jackson v The Fresh Food Company (2007) Ltd: 4107866/2019
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 September 2020 |
| Citation | 4107866/2019 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 21 May 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Breach of Contract |
E.T. Z4 (WR)
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case No: S/4107866/2019
5
Held in Glasgow on 14 and 15 January and 7 August 2020
Employment Judge: G Woolfson
Tribunal Members: Lorna Taylor
Liz Farrell
10
Ms A Jackson Claimant
Represented by:
Mr S Healey –
15
Solicitor
The Fresh Food Company (2007) Ltd Respondent
Represented by:
20
Mr T Muirhead –
Solicitor
25
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
The claims for unfair dismissal, sex discrimination, pregnancy or maternity
discrimination and breach of contract do not succeed. All of the claims are
dismissed.
30
REASONS
Introduction
1. The claimant has brought claims for unfair dismissal, sex discrimination,
pregnancy or maternity discrimination and breach of contract.
35
S/4107866/2019 Page 2
2. We heard evidence from the claimant, and four witnesses for the respondent:
Ashley Gray, Maxine Valentini, Linda Queen and Yvonne Thompson. We
were referred to a joint bundle of documents.
3. The hearing took place over three days in Glasgow. The hearing was
5
postponed after the second day due to the health of the respondent’s fourth
witnesses, Yvonne Thompson. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and also the
health of the witness, the third and final day of the hearing was by way of a
CVP (cloud video platform) hearing. A witness statement was provided for
Yvonne Thompson, together with an agreed statement of facts in respect of
10
that part of her evidence which could be agreed. Outline written submissions
were also provided in advance of the final day of the hearing, and these were
supplemented by oral submissions after the evidence of Yvonne Thompson
had been completed.
15
4. The claimant is not seeking a compensatory award, as she has fully mitigated
her loss. She is seeking a basic award of £300 and injury to feelings of
£15,000. She is also seeking damages for breach of contract of £240.
The issues to be determined
20
5. The issues to be determined were originally set out in a Note following a
preliminary hearing which took place on 2 October 2019.
6. At the start of the hearing on 14 January 2020, the parties agreed that the
25
claimant had resigned with effect from 21 May 2019. However, the solicitor
for the claimant applied to amend the claim, following on from an email which
had been sent to the Tribunal that morning. The amendment was to include
an argument (as an alternative to the claim for constructive unfair dismissal)
that the respondent implicitly terminated the claimant’s employment by
30
ignoring correspondence of 7 May 2019 from the claimant’s solicitor and that
the dismissal was an act of pregnancy discrimination and/or direct sex
discrimination. It was argued that the effective date of termination (for this
S/4107866/2019 Page 3
purpose) should be treated as being 14 May 2019. There was no objection to
this application and the amendment was allowed.
7. The Tribunal and the solicitors then agreed upon a revised list of issues,
before evidence was led.
5
8. Following the postponement of the hearing after the second day, and after a
case management preliminary hearing which took place on 18 May 2020, the
Tribunal confirmed in writing the issues to be determined, which are as
follows:
10
Discrimination
8.1. Did the respondent decide to: (i) refuse to allow the claimant to return
to work following maternity leave, and/or (ii) refuse to discuss with the
15
claimant or her solicitor her return to work?
8.2. If so, when was this decision made and was this within the protected
period?
20
8.3. Was this unfavourable treatment because the claimant was on
maternity leave, further to section 18 of the Equality Act 2010?
8.4. Alternatively, was this less favourable treatment because of the
claimant’s sex and/or pregnancy or maternity, further to section 13 of
25
the Equality Act 2010?
Constructive dismissal: section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
8.5. Did the respondent receive and ignore an email of 10 May 2019 from
30
the claimant’s solicitor and, if it did, was that a repudiatory breach of
contract?
8.6. Was there otherwise a breakdown in trust and confidence which
amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract?
35
To continue reading
Request your trial