In Peart v Care Preference Limited, an ET upheld P’s claim that she had been unfairly dismissed for asserting her statutory rights under the Working Time Regulations 1998 and because of her pregnancy. P’s contract stated she would work “no more than 48 hours per week averaged over a 17-week period” and that she should be available, ‘on call’, to participate in emergency cover arrangements. After becoming pregnant P complained that due to on call requirements, she was working in excess of 48 hours per week on average. The ET found that the principal reason for P’s dismissal was her proposal that she would no longer work average hours in excess of the Working Time Regulations limit. The fact that she also alleged that it was illegal for her as a pregnant woman to be required to work more than 48 in a week meant the pregnancy and the refusal were indivisible, and so pregnancy was a material influence or effective cause of the dismissal. The ET awarded P £35, 924.95.
£35,000 award to pregnant employee who raised concerns over long working hours
Article by: Makbool Javaid |