Highlights this time around are two cases concerned with pregnancy-related matters and one in relation to a claimant trying to challenge a compromise agreement.

===============================================
1. Michelle McCahon –v- Samuel Wilson Design Associates 6825/09

This case is a harsh reminder to employers in their treatment of pregnant workers. The Claimant in this case was selected for redundancy 13 days after she had advised him that she was pregnant. Not only did the employer no follow any selection procedure or the Statutory Procedure, he also failed to deal with her subsequent grievance raised.

The Respondent insulted the Claimant, who objected to being shouted at, by stating that, “I have to shout at a slow learner like you”. When her mother submitted a sick line the following day stating that, “I think you owe my daughter an apology” – he replied, “I am going to make her redundant; I’m going bust”.

It was the employer’s defence that he had stated on many occasions that, “I can recall a number of times when I clearly stated the gravity of the problem” and although the Claimant stated that she was aware of the downturn in work and the financial difficulties of the business, the tribunal held that she would not have been aware that she was being made redundant. The Claimant was made redundant but the Employer’s son was not, even though the Claimant was better qualified and had longer service – however the tribunal stated that this was not sex discrimination but merely due to the fact that this was the Employer’s son.

The Tribunal awarded a total of £71, 943.45, including 18 months' future loss of salary due to the current economic climate and the difficulty the Claimant would have in obtaining an alternative post.

===============================================
2. Elizabeth Quigley –v- Paul McGrory t/a Café Ole 1251/08, 1506/08, 6265/09 and 7235/09

This pregnancy related discrimination case is a poignant reminder of the extent of detrimental treatment that exists against pregnant women in the workplace.

Ms Quigley was employed as a Manageress in the Employer’s - Café Ole. When she went on maternity leave, her employer failed to pay her maternity pay and indeed it appeared that he had only been “putting her through the books” at £80 per week instead of the £220-£280 that she had been receiving. As a result, she could not obtain and SMP or SMA during the period of her maternity leave.

The employer wanted the Claimant to falsify a claim to the Social Security Agency to obtain her SMA – he refused to sign her MAT B1 form. Furthermore the Employer wrote to the Tribunal alleging among other things that the Claimant was not trustworthy and that the PSNI had raided her home on many occasions. He went on to state, “I look forward to attending court and telling it as it is, while I will have to pay for my legal bills I’m quite sure Ms Quigley will have hers cover by some SCAM”.

The tribunal awarded £46,499.88 inclusive of £27, 282.88 for loss of salary and 50% uplift for failure to follow the statutory procedures. £12,000.00 was awarded for injury to feelings, £2,500.00 for personal injury and £3000.00 by way of aggravated damages in relation to the Respondent’s conduct of the proceedings in his first communication to the OIT before presenting his response and his derogatory if not defamatory remark and allegations in relation to the Claimant which the tribunal stated were, “designed almost certainly to undermine her claim and blacken her character”.

===============================================
3. Suzanne McGillan –v- Chief Constable of the PSNI 1233/08

This was a Pre-hearing review on the issue of the validity of a Compromise Agreement under section 9 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The Claimant in this case had settled the substantive case on day 2 of a two week hearing. The signed agreement stated that the Claimant would withdraw the claim which would then be dismissed.

Two days later the Claimant wrote to the Tribunal stating that she had decided to rescind the agreement and that she had dispensed with the services of her legal representatives. Therefore the tribunal had to decide if the Agreement was valid and if so did the tribunal therefore have no jurisdiction to hear any further aspect of the Claimant’s case.

The tribunal had no hesitation in confirming that the agreement was a valid Compromise Agreement and further ordered that the Claimant pay half the costs incurred as a result of the Claimant’s recession of the agreement. This amounted to £881.00. The Tribunal held that, “the claimant has chosen to disregard advice from her formal legal representative in seeking to set aside the terms of this compromise agreement. In doing so, she has made allegations of personal and professional misconduct against her former advisers. She has also chosen to disregard advice from the respondent’s legal advisers without any apparent attempt to ascertain whether her own views had any merit. Warning of the consequences were interpreted as threats. This constitutes unreasonableness on the part of the Claimant”.