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 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

4.76 Average

164 Reviews

Samantha K

Absolutely brilliant thank you. Caroline Lewis is a legend

Posted 1 week ago

Anonymous

The legal advice was clear and helpful.

Posted 1 week ago

Davinder P

Good Service

Posted 1 week ago

Adrian V

I was using Redmans services for a Settlement Agreement. Very quick and professional service. The outcome was favourable and I was very pleased with the amendments and results. Pretty glad to recommend them for any type of legal advice.

Posted 1 week ago

Anonymous

Very responsive, efficient, clear and supportive. Thank you! Highly recommend.

Posted 1 week ago

Tiago S

Chris was always prompt to help me with legal matters that are beyond my comprehension and very helpful leasing with my former employer. I would recommend Redmans Solicitors to everyone who needs help.

Posted 1 week ago

Anonymous

Fast and professional advice tailored to what was needed. Thanks for your help Chris Hadrill and team.

Posted 1 week ago

Peter S

Really pleased with the outcome and the advice I had from Chris and Sacha.

Posted 2 weeks ago

Harika A

Redmans solicitor's helped me with my settlement agreement, Chris has been very helpful throughout the process.He was very prompt in his responses and made my settlement look simple.Special thanks to Caroline for her efficient communication, thorough explaination of contract terminology and negotiations.I highly reccommend Redmans solicitors for anyone seeking employment related legal help.

Posted 2 weeks ago

Anonymous

Good and quick service

Posted 2 weeks ago

Ricky D

Very satisfying to be assured of such attention and professionalism.

Posted 2 weeks ago

Anonymous

Excellent service - thankyou

Posted 2 weeks ago

Anonymous

Efficient, timely and friendly support and advice

Posted 2 weeks ago

Ahmed S

They are always on hand when you need them and provide support even when its not necessary.

Posted 2 weeks ago

Nemen S

Wonderful experience.Chris was very responsive and provided an excellent service. A real professional who I would recommend to anyone

Posted 2 weeks ago

Anonymous

Their guidance was clear and they provided me with all the information I required. Friendly yet professional

Posted 2 weeks ago

Anonymous

Chris @ Redmans assisted me with an employment issue. Firstly, he was very proactive in coming back to my initial enquiry and then helped to clearly lay out the options that I had in relation to my position. He then assisted with the preparation of my case, which led to a very satisfactory outcome. I would highly recommend the quality of service & professionalism offered by Redmans Solicitors.

Posted 2 weeks ago

Anonymous

Great service

Posted 2 weeks ago

Anonymous

Chris was very effective and decisive in dealing with my matter. I felt guided, and the pressure to make decisions was taken off my shoulders; he knew what needed to be done and I was happy to follow his advice. The result of the legal dispute was a great success for me. He is also kind and personable. The only thing that I would say it could be improved, is the accuracy of cost estimation at the beginning: not many activites, that could not have been forseen had to take place, but costs went up more than double in the end. Overall very good and trustworthy. I would definately recommend and use Redmans services again.

Posted 2 weeks ago

Liz P

An excellent professional service was provided by Chris Hadrill and Mel Chin. Efficient and trustworthy - would highly recommend this company.

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Redmans Solicitors were great. They were able to advice me quickly and efficiently! I would recommend them, as a good solicitors to use.

Posted 1 month ago