Ms S Veselinovic v Curtin Communications Ltd and others: 2203475/2019
| Judgment Date | 26 March 2021 |
| Citation | 2203475/2019 |
| Published date | 07 April 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
Case Number: 2203475/2019 (V)
- 1 -
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
BETWEEN
Claimant AND Respondent
Ms Sanja Veselinovic (1) Curtin Communications Limited
(2) Ms Catherine Mary Senda
(3) Mr Stephen John Carey
(4) Mr Nicholas Paul Stanton
(5) Mr Paul Duncan Harvey
Heard at: London Central On: 2- 5 and 8-10 March 2021 and
11 and 15 March 2021 in Chambers
Before: Employment Judge Stout
Tribunal Member Frederick Benson
Tribunal Member Georgina Carpenter
Representations
For the Claimant: Carolyn D’Souza (counsel)
For the respondent: Claire McCann (counsel)
JUDGMENT
The unanimous judgment of the Tribunal is:
(1) The Claimant’s claims of unfair dismissal and automatic dismissal for
having made protected disclosures and/or exercised her right to maternity
leave are not well-founded under Part X of the Employment Rights Act
1996 (ERA 1996), and are dismissed.
(2) The Respondents did contravene s 18(4) and s 39(2)(d) of the Equality
Act 2010 (EA 2010) by discriminating against the Claimant because she
had exercised her right to maternity leave in relation to the detriments
identified in the judgment as detriments (a), (e) and (f).
Case Number: 2203475/2019 (V)
- 2 -
(3) The Respondents did not contravene s 13 and s 39(2)(c)/(d) of the EA
2010 by discriminating against the Claimant because of her sex. Those
claims are dismissed.
(4) The Respondents did not contravene s 27 and s 39(2)(d) of the EA 2010
by victimising the Claimant. Those claims are dismissed.
(5) The Claimant’s claims that she was subjected to detriments for having
made protected disclosures are:
a. well-founded as against the First Respondent under s 47B(1) of the
ERA 1996 in respect of the detriments identified in the judgment as
detriments (a), (b), (d), (e), (f) and (h)(iv);
b. well-founded as against the Second Respondent under s 47B(1A)
of the ERA 1996 in respect of the detriments identified in the
judgment as detriments (a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h)(iv), and the
First Respondent is vicariously liable for those detriments under s
47B(1B);
c. not well-founded and therefore dismissed as against the other
Respondents and in respect of the other detriments against all
Respondents.
(6) The Claimant’s claims that she was subjected to detriments for having
exercised her right to maternity leave under s 47C ERA 1996 are out of
time and are dismissed.
(7) Any compensation to be awarded against the First and/or Second
Respondent in respect of any loss flowing from dismissal is to be
calculated on the basis of a reduced salary and subject to a 90% deduction
to reflect the chance that the Claimant would have been lawfully dismissed
for redundancy in any event.
(8) The ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
did not apply in this case and therefore there is no adjustment to be made
to any award under s 207B of the TULR(C)A 1992.
Case Number: 2203475/2019 (V)
- 3 -
REASONS
1. Ms Sanya Veselinovic (the Claimant) was formerly a statutory director,
shareholder and the Finance Director of the First Respondent, Curtin & Co
Limited (the Company). While she was absent on maternity leave, there was
a management buy out (MBO) of the Company by the individual respondents
(Ms Senda, Mr Stanton, Mr Carey and Dr Harvey) and a Mr Michael Cox, as
part of which the Claimant relinquished her shareholding and directorship, but
remained an employee. On her return from maternity leave in May 2019 she
was placed ‘at risk’ of redundancy and her employment was subsequently
terminated by the Company by reason (the Respondents say) of redundancy.
The termination was on notice with effect from 10 December 2019. In these
proceedings, the Claimant brings claims for unfair dismissal, including
automatic unfair dismissal for whistle-blowing/exercising her statutory right to
maternity leave. She also brings claims of sex and maternity discrimination,
subjection to detriments for whistle-blowing and victimisation.
The type of hearing
2. This has been a remote electronic hearing under Rule 46 which has been
consented to by the parties. The form of remote hearing was V: fully video. A
face to face hearing was not held because of the pandemic.
3. The public was invited to observe via a notice on Courtserve.net. Some
members of the public joined. There were some connectivity issues but only
briefly and each occasion was dealt with by the parties and Tribunal agreeing
what was said during any period that counsel, Judge or Tribunal Member had
suffered the connection problem. The order of witnesses also had to be
changed when Mr Curtin was unable to connect at the time originally arranged
for his evidence.
4. The participants were told that it is an offence to record the proceedings. The
participants who gave evidence confirmed that when giving evidence they
were not assisted by another party off camera.
The issues
5. At the start of the hearing it was agreed that the list of issues to be determined
was as follows:
1. Time limits / jurisdiction
1.1. Were all of the Claimant's complaints presented within the time limits
set out in s.48(3) & (4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA
1996) / s.123(1)(a) & (b) of the Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010)? Given
the date when the ET1 was presented and the dates of early
To continue reading
Request your trial