Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

MaternityLatest NewsMaternity and paternityUnfair dismissalWorking Time Regulations

Pregnant worker who challenged working hours wins unfair dismissal claim

by Ashleigh Webber 2 Jul 2019
by Ashleigh Webber 2 Jul 2019 Shutterstock
Shutterstock

A care assistant who was dismissed from her role after seeking to opt out of a 48-hour-plus week because she was pregnant has been awarded more than £35,000 in compensation.

The Middlesborough employment tribunal found that Mrs Peart was unfairly dismissed after she had told her employer, Care Preference, she wanted to withdraw a previous agreement that opted her out of the 48-hour maximum working week under the Working Time Directive, due to her pregnancy.

Maternity

Employers should publish new mum retention rates, MPs urge

New mums to receive six months more redundancy protection

The tribunal also found her dismissal was unfavourable treatment because of her pregnancy.

Mrs Peart, along with other care assistants, were often required to work “on call” shifts beyond their usual hours to cover for staff sickness and other resourcing issues. This meant they had to agree to opt out of the 48-hour maximum week.

In March 2018, she was informed by Mr James, the company’s managing director, that another staff member had resigned and she might need to pick up extra shifts. Mrs Peart said she would be unable to do so because of childcare arrangements, as her partner was in the armed forces and had recently been posted, and asked to be removed from on-call duties because she was unhappy with the number of hours she was being asked to work.

A week later she took sickness absence on the advice of her GP, giving more than 24 hours’ notice ahead of her shift, as the company policy required.

She also told Mr James that Acas had advised her it was illegal for a pregnant woman to work over 48 hours in a week, stating: “if I previously signed to state that I am happy to work over 48 hours within the same week this no longer stands due to my change in circumstances and I request this be withdrawn immediately as I will not be working over 48 hours after I return from sickness leave”.

While absent from work, she was invited to a meeting to discuss issues including the failure to attend on-call duties and failing to follow procedure for enacting sickness.

Access to the portal for viewing shifts was also revoked. When she asked Mr James about why she could no longer log in, he told her she had been suspended.

Following the meeting, Mrs Peart was dismissed without notice pay.

In its judgment, the tribunal found that the issues were only raised by Mr James when she had raised concerns about the hours she was being allocated.

Judge Joanna Wade said: “There were no aggravating circumstances; she had not lied; she had simply said she could not cover the shift for lack of childcare. Mr James did not convene a meeting immediately after the failure, and the claimant was permitted to attend her next shift… As far as she was concerned her explanation of childcare difficulties had been accepted, and cover had been arranged.”

She found the principal reason for Mrs Peart’s dismissal was that she would no longer work in excess of the Working Time Regulations limit on average working hours, because of her pregnancy.

“The fact that she also alleged that it was illegal for her as a pregnant woman to be required to work more than 48 hours in a week, simply rendered her communication all the more intolerable: Mr James’ had previously been critical of the claimant taking advice and communicating practical difficulties,” she said.

“In all the circumstances of this case the pregnancy and the refusal are indivisible and the pregnancy cannot be anything other than a material influence or effective cause of the dismissal.”

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

In June, the tribunal ordered Care Preference to pay Mrs Peart a total of £35,924.95 to cover loss of earnings and injury to feelings.

D&I opportunities currently on PT Jobs

More D&I jobs

Ashleigh Webber

Ashleigh is a former editor of OHW+ and former HR and wellbeing editor at Personnel Today. Ashleigh's areas of interest include employee health and wellbeing, equality and inclusion and skills development. She has hosted many webinars for Personnel Today, on topics including employee retention, financial wellbeing and menopause support.

previous post
Staff with arthritis need more government support, urges charity
next post
Five ways HR can improve cyber security

You may also like

Government urged to commit to wholesale review of...

6 May 2025

Miscarriage and pregnancy loss leave progresses to House...

24 Mar 2025

New rules from April on neonatal leave and...

21 Mar 2025

April 2025: What’s coming up for HR?

21 Mar 2025

Ministers commit to miscarriage and pregnancy loss leave

12 Mar 2025

Tennis pros to receive paid maternity leave from...

6 Mar 2025

Up to 74,000 women forced out of work...

27 Feb 2025

Why 2025 is ‘make or break’ for your...

25 Feb 2025

New neonatal care leave rules will help 60,000...

6 Feb 2025

Right to neonatal care leave and pay to...

20 Jan 2025

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+