Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

In the case of Ms R Martin v Beauty Tonic 64 Beach Rd Limited and Mr Gregory William May Case number 2405471/18, the Employment Tribunal held that an employee had been automatically unfairly dismissed when she was dismissed for being pregnant and discriminated against when her employer failed to conduct a pregnancy risk assessment.

The facts in Ms R Martin v Beauty Tonic 64 Beach Rd Limited and Mr May

The claimant, Ms Martin, started working for the first respondent as a beauty therapist in January 2017.  Mr May, the second respondent, was the Managing Director of the first respondent, Beauty Tonic 64 Beach Rd Limited (“Beauty Tonic”).  In August 2017 the claimant informed the Mr May that she was pregnant and in or around September 2017 the claimant asked him for time off to attend an antenatal appointment.  The claimant was advised to book the day off as holiday or she would not be paid.  She went on to use annual leave for all of her ante natal appointments.  Later on that year, Mrs Moreton-Derain was appointed area manager and her duties included managing the salon where the claimant worked.

In November 2017 the claimant took the day off work for an illness relating to her pregnancy. Mrs Moreton Derain was Facebook friends with the claimant and checked her Facebook status that night and noticed that the claimant’s public entries showed that she had gone shopping with her partner that evening.  Mrs Moreton Derain did not discuss the Facebook post with the claimant.  On 21 November the claimant asked for the day off to attend hospital for blood tests and because she felt tired.  Mrs Moreton-Derain again checked the claimant’s Facebook page and noticed that the claimant had posted of her intention to visit a friend on the 21 November.  This time Mrs Moreton-Derain did ask the claimant about her Facebook post and was told by the claimant that in fact, she had not gone to visit her friend’s salon after all.

Around the same time Mrs Moreton-Derain asked the claimant on numerous occasions whether she intended on leaving her job because of her pregnancy and the claimant became upset with Mrs Moreton-Derain repeatedly asking her about her future intentions.

On 28 November 2017 Mr Campbell, a friend of the claimant’s with HR experience, sent an email to Mrs Moreton-Derain requesting, amongst other things, a copy of the findings from the first respondent’s workplace risk assessment and in particular those relevant to the Pregnant Workers Directive.  Mrs Moreton-Derain replied stating she would provide it as soon as possible, but after discussion with Mr May, a decision was made not to reply to the e-mail.

On 29 November Mrs Moreton-Derain attended the claimant’s place of work with the stated purpose of carrying out the risk assessment.  However, she failed to complete a risk assessment form and she did not discuss with the claimant any concerns she had about working at the salon or with chemical as she was required to do.  She went on to prepare a hand-written note stating the assessment had taken place and asking the claimant to sign it, which she refused to do.

On 30 November for the first time Mr May complained about the claimant’s personal use of the work mobile phone.  On 2nd December Mrs Moreton-Derain and the Mr May attended the salon where the claimant worked and began interrogating her about who Mr Campbell was and made the comments ‘Why are you doing this to us?’ and ‘I thought we were mates’.  At no time during that conversation did Mrs Moreton-Davies or Mr May discuss the claimant’s attendance record, or allegations regarding her conduct or capability.

On 7 December the claimant became aware of the fact that heavy snow was predicted for the following day which would mean she would be unable to attend work.  She advised Mrs Moreton-Davies who told her not to worry and that she would get her shift covered.  The same thing happened the next day and again the claimant contacted Mrs Moreton-Derain and was advised that she would reschedule her appointments.  She did not contact Mrs Moreton-Derain or Mr May on the actual day to confirm her non-attendance.

She then received an e-mail at 12.15pm on the 9 December terminating her employment.  The email stated that her employment was being terminated due to their warning about her absenteeism not being taken seriously.

The law

Section 18 Equality Act 2010 states that a person discriminates against a woman if, in the protected period in relation to a pregnancy, he treats her unfavourably because of her pregnancy or because of illness suffered as a result of the pregnancy.  Section 18 also covers unfavourable treatment of a pregnant employee based on any health and safety concerns of the employee for herself or her unborn child.

Regulation 3(1) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999/32/42 sets out a general duty on employers to safeguard the health and safety of their employees.  By virtue of regulation 16(1) the employer must include in an assessment under Reg 3(1) an assessment of particular risks to new or expectant mothers and their babies where their work is of a kind which would involve risk to the health and safety of the expectant mother and/or baby from processes or working conditions, or physical, biological or chemical agents.

An employer’s failure to carry out a risk assessment can, in the case of pregnant worked, entitle her to bring a complaint of pregnancy and maternity discrimination under S18 of the Equality Act 2010.

The decision of the Employment Tribunal in Ms R Martin v Beauty Tonic 64 Beach Rd Limited and Mr May

The Employment Tribunal found that the respondent’s witnesses’ evidence was inconsistent as to the real reason for the claimant’s dismissal.  They went on the hold that the reason for the claimant’s dismissal was her pregnancy and that her claim for automatic unfair dismissal under s99 of the Employment Rights Act was well founded.  They also found that the claimant’s claim under s18 of the Equality Act 2010 was well founded.

Our solicitors’ comments on the case

Sacha Barrett, a Senior Associate in the employment department at Redmans, made the following comment on the case: “This case demonstrates the importance of employers making sure they comply with employment legislation designed to protect pregnant employees and their unborn child, regardless of their size or resources”.

The decision of the Employment Tribunal in Ms Martin v Beauty Tonic 64 Beach Rd Limited and Mr May case number 2405471/18 can be found here.

About

Redmans Employment Team deal with employment matters for both employers and employees, including drafting employment contracts and policies, advising employers and employees on compromise agreements, handling day-to-day HR issues, advising on restructures, and handling Employment Tribunal cases for both employers and employees Call 020 3397 3603 to speak to one of the members of our employment team or email us on enquiries@redmans.co.uk. Redmans have offices in Richmond, Chiswick, Hammersmith, Fulham, Kingston, Wimbledon, Ealing, Kings Cross and Marylebone (meetings strictly by appointment only).

Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

Share →

Our awards

Request a callback

Your first name

Your last name

Your email

Your telephone number

Contact us

Please feel free to discuss your own position and concerns. Contact your nearest office on:

T: 020 3397 3603
E: enquiries@redmans.co.uk
W: www.redmans.co.uk

Testimonials

4.75 Average

193 Reviews

Mark W

Most professional from start to finish offering very a personal service. Most impressive and quick when dealing with the matters in hand.

Posted 3 weeks ago

Anonymous

Posted 3 weeks ago

submit

I am very glad I came across Redmans Solicitors. Fantastic service!

Posted 3 weeks ago

Anonymous

Fantastic communication, always happy to answer queries, highly recommended.

Posted 3 weeks ago

Wavenie B

They were very straight to the point, friendly and understanding people. I felt they had my best interest. They were easy to get hold of, replies were almost instant. 5/5 for customer service

Posted 3 weeks ago

Christina P

Caroline was fantastic to work with - extremely knowledgeable, supportive, thorough and honest. I definitely recommend Redmans!

Posted 3 weeks ago

Anonymous

Very well done and fast support. Professional and reliable. Highly recommended!

Posted 3 weeks ago

Helene L

They were very knowledgable in the respected area in terms of change in law/regulations that is crucial for the clients who are seeking for legal arvice.

Posted 3 weeks ago

Sara R

Very helpful and wonderful advice

Posted 3 weeks ago

Marie D

very good service all digitalised

Posted 3 weeks ago

Philip H

Chris Hadrill handled my case with great accuracy and efficiency. Basically made it feel like a process without hassle. Doesn't try to expand the case just for greater fees. I value his professional advice highly.

Posted 3 weeks ago

Michael W

Professional, responsive and supportive - excellent service!

Posted 4 weeks ago

Anonymous

I was really happy with the service provided. I had to chase a couple of time but despite that, my matter was dealt with in a timely manor. I would use again in the future

Posted 4 weeks ago

Lee M

Superb service and always available

Posted 1 month ago

Jonathan S

I was very grateful for the support I received from Redmans during a very difficult period. Rana Tandon really got under the skin of my issue and understood what was important to me, steering me carefully and sensibly to an outcome I was very happy with. I would recommend Redmans to anyone else without any reservations whatsoever.

Posted 1 month ago

Mohamed A

Super helpful and efficient, trustworthy service

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

efficient, responsive and effective

Posted 1 month ago

Andrew B

Very good service

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Excellent service, compassionate and a good outcome

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

I had an employment issue which required legal advice. Chris was very supportive and knowledgeable, resulting in an optimum resolution in my favour. Would definitely recommend.

Posted 1 month ago

David M

Very professional and first-rate advice. I would use again. With thanks,

Posted 1 month ago