In the case of Miss R Richardson v James Fisher Nuclear Limited Rachel Richardson joined James Fisher Nuclear, which provides specialist engineering, manufacturing and technical services to the nuclear industry, as a senior quantity surveyor in September 2018.
She was in effect the commercial manager, the hearing was told, and was given targets to meet during her six-month probationary period. This included being assigned to a ‘very significant’ project which had already been in progress for two years.
The tribunal heard Ms Richardson had been warned it was a ‘problem’ project at the Preston, Lancashire-based company, in which the team had ‘gone rogue’, overspending was ‘rife’ and progress was lacking. It also heard the manager of the project had issues with Miss Richardson, and that others working on the project ‘did not welcome’ her introduction.
In March 2019, the panel heard Miss Richardson discovered she was pregnant and immediately told boss Mr McCormick. Later that month she had another scan, missing a monthly meeting with the client for whom the project she was working on was for. The tribunal also heard Ms Richardson was absent from work due to ‘severe morning sickness’ for nine days in April.
Around the same time, Mr McCormick spoke to employees reporting to Miss Richardson who complained their relationship with her was ‘strained’ and that they could no longer work for her. Mr McCormick told the tribunal these comments were ‘the straw that broke the camel’s back’ and made Miss Richardson’s position ‘untenable’.
He sent an email to colleagues seeking advice on how to dismiss an employee in their probation period. However, the tribunal considered it ‘important’ that when this email was sent, Miss Richardson was absent due to a pregnancy-related illness and had also recently failed to attend a meeting due to her pregnancy.
It noted: “At the time this email was sent: Miss Richardson was absent due to a pregnancy-related illness; had recently emailed Mr McCormick about her pregnancy; and had recently failed to attend a meeting with the client due to a pregnancy-related medical appointment.
“The tribunal finds that the project upon which Miss Richardson worked was one which was very important to James Fisher Nuclear and to Mr McCormick.
“The Tribunal can see that her being absent during her pregnancy (including from meetings with the client) and thereafter taking a period of maternity leave, may have been a significant issue for the company and Mr McCormick.”
On April 29, the hearing was told Miss Richardson was sacked by Mr McCormick as she ‘had not met her objectives’.
Employment Judge Phil Allen concluded her company had failed to show her dismissal was not due to her pregnancy.
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.
