Mrs T Figueira v Pen and Brush Ltd T/a Nusa Kitchen (in Voluntary Liquidation): 2217470/2024 and 2219639/2024

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 2217470/2024, 2219639/2024

Between

Mrs T FigueiraClaimant

Pen and Brush Ltd t/a Nusa Kitchen (in Voluntary Liquidation)Respondent

Before

Employment Judge Hindmarch

In person for claimant

Date 7 May 2025

JUDGMENT

[1]The following complaints of direct pregnancy and maternity discrimination and detriment under s47c Employment Rights Act 1996 are well-founded and succeed:a. The Respondent failed to notify the Claimant of any changes or proposed changes to her role, nor did they update her in relation to any changes within the workplace, during the protected period.

b. The Respondent did not carry out any redundancy process before making the decision to remove the Claimant’s role.

c. The Respondent failed to notify the Claimant of a suitable alternative vacancy that had become available (Operations Manager) and therefore did not give her the opportunity to apply for the role, or offer her the role on a preferential basis, despite acknowledging that the Claimant was the most suitable employee for the role.

d. The Respondent promoted the Claimant’s maternity cover, who was less experienced and junior to the Claimant, into the role of Operations Manager during the protected period.

e. On 12 December 2023 the Respondent informed the Claimant that she would be unable to return to work from maternity leave unless she accepted a demotion to the role of Shop Manager. 1 of 3

f. The Respondent failed to address or progress the Claimant’s grievance of 12 December 2023 in any meaningful way and did not allow the Claimant a fair opportunity to discuss her concerns that she had been unfairly disadvantaged because of her maternity leave.

g. On 3 January 2024 the Respondent told the Claimant she had only two options; the first being to accept a demotion to the role of Shop Manager and the second being to leave the Respondent’s employment and accept a “redundancy payment” which was significantly less than the value of her statutory redundancy payment.

[2]The remaining complaints of direct pregnancy and maternity discrimination and detriment under s47c are not well-founded and are dismissed.

[3]The following complaint of victimisation is well-founded and succeeds: a. The Respondent failed to progress the Claimant’s grievance in any meaningful way.

[4]The remaining complaint of victimisation is not well-founded and is dismissed.

[5]The complaints of constructive and of automatic unfair dismissal are not wellfounded and are dismissed. Remedy

[6]The Respondent shall pay the Claimant the following sums:a. Compensation for injury to feelings of £15,000.00.

b. The Respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015 and it is just and equitable to increase the award payable to the Claimant by 20% in accordance with s207A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and in the sum of £3,000.00.

c. Interest on compensation calculated in accordance with the Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 1996 of £2,730.08.

[7]The total award made is £20,730.08.