In Ms A McKnight v Fenwick Tapas the tribunal in Glasgow heard Ms McKnight began working at Fenwick Tapas restaurant as assistant manager in December 2021.
She found out she was pregnant with her second child, in mid-January 2022 and general manager at the restaurant, Mr Carruthers, congratulated her.
She was due to go on maternity leave in August of 2022 but a tribunal report said before that she was gradually cut out of the rota.
It stated: “In February 2022 she experienced pain and sickness connected with her pregnancy. She was open with Mr Carruthers about this but was largely able to work her usual number of hours. The symptoms were not constant.
“From the end of March 2022 Mr Carruthers offered Ms McKnight noticeably fewer shifts than before. She was still experiencing occasional sickness at this point. On April 16, 2022, she offered availability for three shifts the following week, but was not put on the rota at all. Mr Carruthers said it had been a quiet week.”
When she was only offered one further shift in May 2022, Ms McKnight sought answers from bosses at WBI Ltd, that runs the restaurant, but couldn’t get hold of HR for four days.
When she did, she was told by HR’s Lynsey Penman “she had been ‘P45’d’ in a way which suggested any conversation about maternity rights had been superseded”.
Mr Carruthers sent her a message saying “no hard feelings” and didn’t message her again until September 2022 to congratulate her on the birth of her son.
Employment Judge Brian Campbell concluded Ms McKnight was discriminated against.
Judge Campbell said: “There were no other apparent factors in her relationship with Mr Carruthers, which was friendly and supportive until the end, or any issues with her performance or conduct which suggested another reason for her being dismissed in the way that she was.
“The unexpected decision to dismiss her caused her a degree of stress at a time when she was already experiencing illness and other symptoms connected to her pregnancy. She had financial commitments in relation to her flat and car as well as everyday expenses.”
The company was ordered to pay Ms McKnight £15,956.40.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
