Overview:
This case examines the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s (EAT) decision to reduce an award for injury to feelings from £10,000 to £2,000, following Eddie Stobart Ltd’s successful appeal. The case involved a redundancy situation during Miss Graham’s maternity leave and the employer’s failure to adequately handle her grievance.
Background:
Miss Graham, a planner at Eddie Stobart’s Newhouse depot, was informed of her redundancy in March 2022 due to the company’s reorganisation. As she was on maternity leave during this period, she asserted her rights under Regulation 10 of the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999 (MAPLE) to be given priority for suitable alternative roles. However, the employer deemed the available roles unsuitable and required her to attend a competitive interview. Miss Graham was unsuccessful and subsequently raised a grievance regarding the process, but due to IT issues and internal errors, the grievance was not adequately addressed. Her employment ended in May 2022.
Employment Tribunal Decision:
The ET ruled that Miss Graham was not unfairly dismissed and did not have a legal right to the alternative role. However, it upheld her claims of detriment under section 47C of the Employment Rights Act and pregnancy/maternity discrimination under section 18 of the Equality Act, finding that the employer’s failure to properly investigate her grievance constituted discriminatory treatment. As a result, the ET awarded £10,000 for injury to feelings, placing the award in the lower end of the “middle” Vento band.
Appeal Outcome:
Eddie Stobart Ltd appealed on two grounds:
1. The £10,000 award was excessive given the limited evidence of Miss Graham’s injury.
2. The ET had failed to adequately explain why it awarded this amount.
The EAT agreed, holding that the evidence of injury was minimal. Miss Graham had described feeling “shocked and upset” due to the employer’s dismissive attitude, but there was no indication that the injury persisted beyond the redundancy process or affected her personal or professional life. The EAT also found that the ET improperly factored in her disappointment over not being offered the alternative role, even though this aspect of her claim had been dismissed.
The EAT reduced the compensation to £2,000, placing it in the lower Vento band for less serious cases. Interest of £169 was added, bringing the total award to £2,169.
Key Takeaways for Union Representatives:
- Grievances and Maternity Leave: Employers must handle grievances properly, especially when an employee is on maternity leave, to avoid findings of detriment or discrimination.
- Vento Bands: Compensation for injury to feelings depends on the severity of the injury, not the seriousness of the employer’s conduct. Limited evidence of harm will likely result in a lower award.
- Procedural Failures: Even isolated procedural failings, such as a missed grievance, can result in liability if they are linked to protected characteristics like pregnancy or maternity.
This case highlights the importance of ensuring procedural fairness and clear communication when handling redundancies involving employees on maternity leave.
