From time to time, cases are brought to the employment tribunal that highlight just how poorly some employers treat their employees. While these situations undoubtedly occur far more frequently, decisions like these should (and I hope they do) serve as a reminder to all that such conduct is prohibited and can have significant ramifications.
Mrs Messum was employed as an executive and HR assistant by Bradford Management Services Ltd. Initially, she was a trusted employee and was given significant HR responsibilities. She recruited people, inducted them, trained them, dealt with the rota, dealt with disciplinary matters, and performed a whole range of other duties.
In February 2019, when she had been employed for around three years, Mrs Messum informed her employer that she was pregnant and intended to start her maternity leave in June. Thereafter, her employer’s attitude changed towards her, such that senior executives stopped talking to her and refused to return her Salaam.
They began to question her performance and sent her to the warehouse to perform physically demanding work. Mrs Messum stated that other employees who had announced their pregnancies had been treated similarly. As a result, she was signed off work with pregnancy-related fatigue and stress at work.
However, she was not paid her sick pay; when she queried this with another member of staff; they said that they had been instructed not to pay her “so that she would learn a lesson.”
During this period, an anonymous allegation was made that Mrs Messum and others were taking food home from the work canteen.
Mrs Messum was invited to an investigation hearing during her period of sickness; when she explained why she could not attend (supported by medical evidence), she was then invited to another meeting during her maternity leave.
When she made it clear that she was dealing with her newborn baby and could not attend, she was told that the meeting could take place at her home; she refused and asked for the details to be sent to her so she could respond in writing. She did not receive a reply.
When she returned to work after her maternity leave and attended a meeting, she explained that there were a few days when she was pregnant when she had not had time to eat, so she had asked her manager for permission to take the food from the canteen (which she was permitted to eat without additional pay) home instead.
He had agreed. Her manager confirmed this when questioned, but she was nonetheless still issued a written warning for ‘theft’ despite there not being any disciplinary process. Her appeal was ignored for many months and not properly dealt with, despite her repeated complaints.
Meanwhile, upon her return, Mrs Messum was told that she was no longer permitted to undertake her HR duties. Her work was initially done by the person employed to cover her maternity leave, and when they left, it was taken on by another senior employee. Instead, she was given menial tasks such as cleaning the toilets and doing laundry. Her complaints about this were not heeded.
She was required to work significantly more than her contractual hours, but her requests for overtime were ignored. When she submitted a grievance about the way she was being treated, she was asked to withdraw it.
Mrs Messume resigned as a result of the way she was being treated; her view was that, like others before her, this was a means of forcing her out.
The Employment Tribunal had no hesitation in finding that she had been constructively unfairly dismissed and that the dismissal amounted to discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy and maternity. The conduct she complained of also amounted to harassment, and she was also entitled to be paid for the hours she had worked as overtime.
This case, while an extreme example, highlights the need to ensure that all workers are treated fairly and appropriately. Employers wield a significant amount of power over their employees, particularly those in lower-paid roles. However, they must ensure that their actions comply with the law, and in particular the prohibition on discrimination based on characteristics protected under the Equality Act 2010.
Safia Tharoo
Barrister, 40 Bedford Row, London
