Helen Ballerino v The Racecourse Association Ltd
[2024] EAT 98
Carnival PLC (t/a Carnival UK) v Laura Hunter
15 August 2024
[2024] EAT 167
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A pregnant employee was made redundant. A court found that the company's redundancy process was unfair, but a higher court disagreed, saying the lower court made mistakes in its decision. The case will be heard again by a different court.
Key Facts
- •Laura Hunter (Claimant) was a team leader at Carnival PLC (Respondent) and went on maternity leave in April 2020.
- •A redundancy exercise reduced 21 team leader posts to 16.
- •Hunter was made redundant.
- •Hunter claimed unfair dismissal and pregnancy/maternity discrimination.
- •The Employment Tribunal found for Hunter on unfair dismissal, but dismissed the discrimination claim.
- •Carnival appealed the Tribunal's decision.
Legal Principles
Suitable alternative vacancy under Regulation 10 of the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999 (MAPLE)
Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999
Unfair dismissal – objective and reasonable redundancy selection process
Eaton Limited v King [1995] IRLR, British Aerospace PLC v Green & Others
Outcomes
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) quashed the Tribunal's finding of automatic unfair dismissal under Regulation 10 of MAPLE.
The EAT held that the Tribunal erred in finding that the remaining 16 posts were 'suitable alternative vacancies' under Regulation 10, as they were pre-existing roles, not newly created ones. The Tribunal incorrectly applied Regulation 10 to a situation of simple reduction in roles, not a creation of new roles.
The EAT quashed the Tribunal's finding of ordinary unfair dismissal.
The EAT found the Tribunal improperly substituted its own judgment on the scoring process, failed to adequately explain how flaws in the process would have altered Hunter's ranking, and relied on a misunderstanding regarding the deferral of redundancy for another employee.
The case was remitted to a fresh Employment Tribunal for rehearing.
Due to the numerous errors of law and the passage of time, the EAT deemed a rehearing by a new Tribunal more appropriate.