EAT Unfair Dismissal: Dismissal/Ambiguous Resignation – Discrimination due to pregnancy. The claimant was employed by the respondent as a housekeeper. She was asked about the quality of her work by the head housekeeper, who knew that she was pregnant. The claimant became upset and left the premises, phoning the head housekeeper shortly afterwards to say she would not be back. She sent in in sick lines for the next two weeks. She phoned to enquire about sick pay and was told that the employer had assumed she had resigned. The ET found that the claimant did not resign, but that the head housekeeper thought that she had resigned. The ET found that the burden of proof had shifted to the respondent but in doing so did not take account of the genuine though erroneous belief of the head housekeeper. Further, the ET found that the respondent failed to carry out a risk assessment relating to the claimant under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. It erred in law in doing so as the claimant had not notified the respondent in writing of her pregnancy.
Held: the ET erred in law in not taking into account the erroneous belief of the head housekeeper. It also erred in law in deciding that the respondent had breached its duty under the 1999 regulation. The case is remitted to a freshly constituted ET to consider in light of all of the facts found.
Lady Stacey H
[2014] UKEAT 0031 – 13 – 2602
Bailii
Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.538270
