This is a case which had been remitted from the Court of Appeal for re-hearing. The issue for the tribunal to consider was first of all, whether the claimant had been automatically unfairly dismissed on grounds of her pregnancy and, secondly, whether she had suffered unlawful sex discrimination on grounds of her pregnancy. The claimant was employed as a full-time room leader. 

The respondent contended that she was dismissed for gross misconduct, namely leaving child F unsupervised in the corridor. There was much conflict of evidence, not least surrounding the allegation that the respondent’s attitude to the claimant changed once they knew she was pregnant. It was held that the claimant was unfairly dismissed because of her pregnancy and was unlawfully discriminated against on grounds of her pregnancy. The tribunal was also critical of the conduct of the disciplinary procedures, not least that Mrs Murphy, who sat in on the original disciplinary hearing, was also present at the appeal and that her husband conducted the appeal hearing.

PRACTICAL LESSONS

This is another case where failures of an employer to follow proper procedures were noted with the tribunal describing the process as ‘shambolic’. However, this case is a better illustration of the dangers of a respondent not properly calling relevant witnesses and directing the court to salient policies and procedures. Consequently, the tribunal had no choice but to accept the direct evidence of the claimant since it could not take account of much of the evidence of the respondent since the relevant witnesses were not present. Had the respondent called its key witnesses and properly challenged the claimant’s evidence then the tribunal’s conclusions could have been different.