Blackdown Hill Management Limited & Anor v Anastasia Tuchkova
[2023] EAT 156
Helen Ballerino v The Racecourse Association Ltd
20 June 2024
[2024] EAT 98
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A woman was fired during maternity leave, supposedly because her job was redundant. The court said the lower court didn't properly check if the job *really* was redundant, which was a big mistake. The case will be retried to fix this error.
Key Facts
- •Helen Ballerino (claimant) was dismissed during her maternity leave, purportedly due to redundancy.
- •The dismissal occurred after the Racecourse Association Ltd (respondent) created a new, full-time role that encompassed the claimant's previous part-time role.
- •The claimant argued the redundancy was a sham and her dismissal was discriminatory (sex, pregnancy, maternity) or, alternatively, unfairly dismissed.
- •The Employment Tribunal (ET) dismissed the claimant's claims, finding the new role was not a suitable alternative vacancy and that the redundancy was genuine.
- •The claimant appealed.
Legal Principles
Direct discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA)
Equality Act 2010, sections 13 and 18
Shifting burden of proof in discrimination cases (EqA)
Equality Act 2010, section 136
Unfair dismissal – automatically unfair dismissal due to redundancy during maternity leave
Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA), section 99; Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999 (MAPLE), regulation 20(1)(b)
Definition of redundancy under ERA
Employment Rights Act 1996, section 139
Suitable alternative vacancy under MAPLE
Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999, regulation 10
Test for redundancy is not a matter of impression; the statutory definition must be met.
Robinson v British Island Airways Ltd [1978] ICR 304 EAT
Business reorganisation does not automatically equate to redundancy.
Kingwell and others v Elizabeth Bradley Designs Ltd EAT/0661/02
Reduction in headcount is not necessary for redundancy; a reduction in the requirement for total working hours may suffice.
Campbell v Tesco Personal Finance plc [2023] EAT 68
Outcomes
Appeal allowed
The ET failed to address whether there was a genuine redundancy under section 139 ERA, which was crucial to both the unfair dismissal and discrimination claims. The ET's failure to engage with the statutory test for redundancy rendered its decision unsafe.
Case remitted for reconsideration
The ET must reconsider the unfair dismissal and discrimination claims, properly addressing the section 139 ERA redundancy test before determining suitability of alternative vacancies and the respondent’s non-discriminatory explanation for the dismissal.