The Claimant worked as a technical manager for Mothercare from 2016. She went on maternity leave in 2020. She had spoken to her manager regarding assisting with finding temporary cover during her leave but was told that this would not be required.
A restructuring process began, and a male candidate was identified to replace the Claimant. The Claimant was then managed out the business and ultimately dismissed by reason of redundancy in 2021.
The Claimant was successful in her claim of unfair dismissal, with the tribunal declaring the redundancy a sham. The judge declared it “extraordinary” and “inconceivable” that they had not received any emails or written documents which explained why Mothercare made the decision to make the Claimant redundant. The redundancy was not genuine, and the Claimant had been treated unfavourably because of her maternity leave. The situation had been planned out to replace the Claimant, using her maternity leave as an opportunity to do so.
The tribunal also noted that even if the redundancy had been genuine, it had taken place during the Claimant’s protected period. The protected period at the time was the duration of the Claimant’s maternity leave. This means that the Claimant should have been offered suitable alternative employment, which in this case was the role of head of technical.
Since April this year the protected period has been extended to six months following an employee’s return from maternity leave.
For employers this case highlights the importance of documentary evidence and a paper trail which clearly sets out the decision-making process in relation to redundancies. Otherwise, tribunals may readily conclude that in fact the real reason for the treatment complained of is a protected characteristic.
If you have any questions on any of the issues raised in the above article, please contact Alan Sutherland