An ex-recruitment consultant was awarded more than PS25,000 after a successful claim of pregnancy and maternity discrimination against Echo Personnel.
Anna Munkevics was a trainee recruiter at Echo Personnel’s Hereford branch since March 2021. She earned PS21.250 per year. She started her maternity leave on April 20, 2022, after notifying her employer in September 2021 of her pregnancy.
A maternity cover was hired to fill her role while she was on leave. The tribunal heard one of the employees hired to cover her started on a salary per year of PS25,000, and performed the same role.
Revocation of part-time contract
During her maternity leave, Ms Munkevics had discussions with her manager Ben Diston about her return to the workplace. There were a number of options available, such as part-time positions and possible promotions. It was agreed that she would return to her old position temporarily part-time, working two days per week for four hours each day. She would then gradually resume full-time employment.
She confirmed this arrangement by visiting the Hereford office on December 20, 2022. Mr Diston’s manager and Mr Diston agreed to accommodate this request. Based on this agreement, Ms Munkevics then arranged childcare for her in anticipation of returning to work.
Jennie Alexander’s, the finance director at Echo Personnel, informed Ms Munkevics in March 2023 of staffing changes. She stated that Mr Diston left the company, and a new manager would be sought. Ms Munkevics reminded the company about her part-time return and mentioned the challenges of securing childcare for children younger than two.
The company told her, despite this, that it could no longer provide part-time work and demanded she return to her full-time schedule. The tribunal found this to be a breach of the agreement that Mr Diston had made previously.
Tribunal finds that office closures without prior notice are a breach of trust
Ms Munkevics, who felt she had been misled by her company’s management, resigned a month later. When she returned to Hereford in May 2023 to complete her notice period, the office was empty. She learned from staff of a nearby baker that the removals van recently removed everything. The company had not informed her of the closure.
A Birmingham tribunal heard that Ms Munkevics was not informed of the outcome of her grievance, nor had she received any explanation or instructions as to where to report. The tribunal noted that Ms Munkevics could have been instructed to work out of a mobile van that was used by the company for office maintenance but this information wasn’t communicated.
Jonathan Gidney, a judge in the employment court, ruled that Ms Munkevics’ failure to be informed of the closure of her office was due to both her pregnancy and the recent rejection of a part-time agreement. The judge found it difficult to understand how Ms Munkevics was not informed of the office closure, particularly before the end her maternity leave.
He concluded that actions of the firm constituted a breach in trust and confidence, and that verbal agreements about her return were ignored without cause. Discrimination was found in the revocation and lack of discussion of her situation, as well as the revocation of agreed hours.
The tribunal found that the claims of constructive termination, pregnancy discrimination and maternity discrimination, equal wage, contract breach and automatic unfair dismissal based on pregnancy were valid. Ms Munkevics received compensation of PS25,109.92. Other claims were dismissed.
