EAT ruling expands employee protections in parental leave dismissal case

Citation: [2024] EAT 28
Judgment on

Introduction

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruling in the case of Hilton Foods Solutions Ltd v Andrew Wright ([2024] EAT 28) addresses the interpretation of an employee’s right not to be unfairly dismissed under the circumstances of having “sought to take parental leave”. The judgment intersects key areas of employment law, notably dealing with maternity and parental leave rights, as well as the unfair dismissal protections afforded to an employee.

Key Facts

Andrew Wright, the respondent and former employee of Hilton Foods Solutions Ltd, the appellant, argued that the true reason behind his dismissal was related to his discussions and inquiries about taking unpaid parental leave. While Wright had not made a formal written application for parental leave, as required by the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999 (MPLR), the Employment Judge at the Preliminary Hearing had to consider his assertions in the most favorable light and therefore did not strike out the claim. The key factual contention was whether Wright, by indicating his intention to take parental leave through informal discussions and email exchanges, could be said to have “sought” to take parental leave in the eyes of the law.

The legal principles scrutinized in this case center on the interpretation of “sought to take parental leave” as it relates to the MPLR and the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA). Wright claimed protection under ERA Section 99 and MPLR Regulation 20, which safeguard employees from being dismissed if the reason is connected with taking or seeking to take parental leave.

The MPLR outlines formal requirements under paragraphs 1(b) and 3 of Schedule 2, which stipulate that an employee must submit a written notice to their employer 21 days before the intended start of the parental leave. The appellant, Hilton Foods Solutions Ltd, contended that compliance with these requirements is a precondition for conclusively determining that an employee has “sought” to take parental leave.

However, HIS HONOUR JUDGE JAMES TAYLER found that a purposive and broad interpretation of the MPLR is appropriate, referencing the case of Atkins v Coyle Personnel PLC [2008] IRLR 420 to support the view that there should be a causal connection rather than any less stringent connection between the dismissal and the seeking of the leave. This means the determination of whether an employee “sought” to take parental leave is ultimately a factual one that employment tribunals should make based on the totality of the evidence presented.

Outcomes

The EAT concluded that there is not an absolute requirement for the employee to have submitted a formal written request for parental leave in order to satisfy the condition of having “sought” to take parental leave. HIS HONOUR JUDGE JAMES TAYLER dismissed the appeal by Hilton Foods Solutions Ltd, upholding the Employment Judge’s refusal to strike out the claim. The EAT’s decision broadens the potential scope of protection against dismissal for employees who have expressed an intention or taken steps towards taking parental leave, establishing that such protection can potentially apply even if formal procedures have not been strictly followed.

Conclusion

In sum, the EAT judgment in Hilton Foods Solutions Ltd v Andrew Wright elaborates on the distinction between an employee who has ‘sought’ to take parental leave and an employee who is in a position to ‘exercise’ the entitlement to parental leave by giving the specific notice prescribed by the MPLR. In achieving a purposive approach to the interpretation of the MPLR, the EAT has clarified that seeking to take leave is a broader concept than the formal exercising of the right, thus protecting employees whose dismissals are causally connected to steps taken towards availing of parental leave, even where those steps do not include formal notice as set out in the MPLR. This case reinforces the principle that employment protections should be interpreted broadly and purposively, ensuring that employees’ rights are robustly protected.