HUGE BUMP IN THE ROAD FOR 52 STREET EVENTS
If there were a prize for the ‘Best Example of How Not to Treat a Pregnant Worker’ award, it would potentially go to Mr Shaun Collins and 52 Street Events Supplies Ltd, who have been ordered to pay Ms Heather Todd £37,310.05 after subjecting her to pregnancy and maternity discrimination.
The facts
In August 2003, Ms Todd started working as an Account Manager for Mr Shaun Collins, trading as ‘52nd Street’. In May 2021, Mr Collins incorporated his business as ‘52nd St Event Supplies Limited’.
He and Ms Todd enjoyed a good working relationship – at one point Ms Todd stepped in for him when he was ill and continued to run the business on his behalf.
At the time of her dismissal on 2 May 2023, Ms Todd had an unblemished 19-year record of service.
So, what went wrong? Apparently, Ms Todd had the audacity to get pregnant and seek the correct amount of pay during her maternity leave.
In April 2022, Ms Todd had expected her wage to be increased to the applicable National Minimum wage rate (i.e. to £9.50 per hour from £8.91). Her monthly wage in April should have been £902.97, but she was paid £808.72, resulting in a short fall of £94.24. Despite her advising Mr Collins about this error and advising him of the correct rates, he continued pay her at the old, incorrect rate
On 1 May 2022, the Claimant commenced a period of maternity leave. As a result of the error in her pay rate, she was paid less maternity pay than she was entitled to.
“Somewhat unbelievably in this case, despite being named individually as a Respondent to the claim, Mr Collins had not bothered to file a defence, and then, part way through Ms Todd’s evidence, he had left the hearing (which was being conducted by video) by messaging the Judge to say that he needed to go and collect his own children…”
During her leave, she repeatedly asked Mr Collins to correct her pay, which she said she found time consuming and stressful, particularly as she was supposed to be enjoying time with her baby.
During the hearing, the Claimant said:
'I feel as though he has been as difficult as possible to try force my hand to leave even though I have always made it very clear that I would be returning to work from day one. Even before my maternity leave started, he would keep saying whenever it was discussed that I would have nine months paid and then return. Shaun constantly said, ‘see how you feel’ and I said ‘no I would need to return from a financial point of view.’
Between 30 January 2023 and 1 May 2023, the Claimant was trying to return to work (as she had always intended to return at the end of January), however Mr Collins prevented her from returning, whilst continuing to be evasive about the pay issues. Then, on 2 May 2023, he dismissed Ms Todd by email. The email stated:
‘I have reviewed your claims regarding working hours and holidays due in relation to those hours and found them to be inaccurate; you have also made direct threats in relation to moneys you inaccurately claim to be owed. After conducting an investigation into the misappropriation of funds, we have found that you have engaged in behaviour that is a clear violation of policy and is unacceptable. Your actions have breached the trust of the organisation. As a result of your misconduct, we have no choice but to terminate your employment with immediate effect.’
Ms Todd appealed but Mr Collins did not respond or provide any evidence to support his decision to dismiss.
Ms Todd subsequently brought claims in the Tribunal for pregnancy and maternity discrimination, unfair dismissal, and arrears of wages. She was successful with all claims. The Judge found that:
‘The lack of transparency, any procedure and the timing of dismissal were all very suspicious. The claimant was on maternity leave not working, so how and when did she commit any alleged misconduct at work? I do not find there were any reasonable grounds for dismissing the claimant for gross misconduct. There was no investigation and no opportunity provided to hear what the claimant might say in defence or mitigation.’
The Judge also found that Mr Collins’ attitude towards Ms Todd had changed when she tried to assert her maternity rights to the correct maternity pay and that he ‘either consciously or unconsciously was treating the claimant unfavourably because of her pregnancy and because she was seeking to and had taken maternity leave’.
He awarded Ms Todd £37,310.05, which included an injury to feelings award of £10,000, which fell into the middle band of the Vento guidelines. The Judge considered how the unfavourable treatment had a devastating and long-lasting effect on her life, and focussed on how Mr Collins had made her feel like she was the problem and that she wasn’t a priority because she was on maternity leave. The Judge also enhanced the compensation awarded to Ms Todd by 25%, on account of the business’ failure to try and rectify their procedural failings by allowing an appeal and awarded her a payment of £779 (4 weeks’ pay) because she had never been provided with a contract of employment.
Somewhat unbelievably in this case, despite being named individually as a Respondent to the claim, Mr Collins had not bothered to file a defence, and then, part way through Ms Todd’s evidence, he had left the hearing (which was being conducted by video) by messaging the Judge to say that he needed to go and collect his own children. The Judge went on to find him jointly and severally liable with his business for the discrimination elements of the claim. Hopefully, this will mean that he takes the issue of maternity leave and pay more seriously and sensitively in the future, but unfortunately, we are not optimistic about that! This case does at the very least:
act as an example of how not to conduct a disciplinary process – during maternity leave or otherwise
act as a reminder of the importance of addressing pay issues quickly and fairly, particularly for individuals who are about to go on maternity leave or are querying their pay during maternity leave whilst trying to enjoy time with their baby
serves as a reminder to ensure all staff are aware that they can be held personally liable for acts of discrimination committed in the workplace
serves as a reminder to ensure all staff have been issued with (and have ideally signed) a s.1 statement outlining their main terms of employment.