The claimant was employed in a coffee shop which was the subject of a “relevant transfer” within the meaning of the TUPE Regulations 2006. The second respondent became the new owner of the business and the claimant was given her p45 and not offered a job. She considered that the omission to offer her a job under the new regime had happened because she was pregnant. The claimant noted that none of the other Romanian staff had been offered employment and that many of that local staff had been. Because of those circumstances, she formed the view that her dismissal was also racially discriminatory.

The tribunal concluded that if the claimant was dismissed because she was pregnant, that was a sexually discriminatory dismissal pursuant to The Sexual Discrimination Order (NI) 1976 even if gender discrimination is not the main reason for the dismissal, so long as it was a significant reason for it. The claimant proved facts from which the tribunal could conclude that the dismissal was sexually discriminatory and no adequate explanation was cited in rebuttal. In the context of racial discrimination, analogous principles applied and the tribunal held that there was proof of facts from which they could conclude that the dismissal of the claimant was racially discriminatory. Again, no explanation was proffered in response to this allegation.

In terms of compensation, the appropriate amount had to take into account that both unfair dismissal and discrimination had been proven. Pursuant to Art.160 of the ERO (NI) 1996 a basic award was made. No compensatory award was made as the tribunal since the tribunal awarded an amount in respect of injury to feelings for the sexual discrimination 


Practical lessons

This case illustrates well the situation where the tribunal is faced with the task of awarding compensation after an unfair dismissal is proven alongside one or more other complain e.g. sex or disability discrimination. Interestingly, the tribunal decided against awarding an uplift as the respondent’s failure to follow proper procedures was ‘the result of ignorance, rather than the result of any deliberate decision’. This suggests a defence for employers in such situations, although it is probably more likely to be relevant when a significant award has already being made and the tribunal considers sufficient financial punishment has been handed out.