Following Office Return from Maternity Leave, Recruitment Worker Finds Workplace Abandoned

In Ms Anna Munkevics v Echo Personnel Ltd, a recruitment worker has been awarded over £25,000 after the employment tribunal learned she attended a vacant workplace on her office return from maternity leave. Her employer failed to notify her of this closure, with the tribunal ruling that this arose because of her pregnancy.

Below, we examine what happened and the tribunal’s judgment of her claims. If you have any questions about this case or believe your rights have been breached, contact Redmans Solicitors now. As employment law experts, we can answer your queries and provide specialist advice.

Begin your journey with us now by:

The Facts in Anna Munkevics v Echo Personnel Ltd

Background

Anna Munkevics (“the Claimant”) worked as a trainee recruitment consultant for Echo Personnel Ltd (“the Respondent”) from 9 March 2021. By 1 September, she was no longer a trainee and was remunerated £21,250 per annum.

The Claimant became pregnant on 23 September and notified the Respondent in January 2022. The following month, she confirmed her baby’s due date (the week of 10 May) via a MATB1 Form. 

Despite several attempts to obtain a letter concerning her maternity leave and pay throughout her leave, the Claimant only received this after chasing on 11 January 2023. At such time, the Respondent confirmed her leave was due to end on 1 May and that she had to confirm her intentions regarding her office return by 1 April.

Maternity Cover is Arranged

After the Claimant notified the Respondent of her pregnancy, it searched for maternity cover. On 31 January 2022, Mr Darren Evans was offered the recruitment consultant role on £25,000 annually. During proceedings, the Respondent asserted the difference in pay arose due to Mr Evans assuming an enhanced role. Nevertheless, no documentation was provided during the proceedings to support this. As such, the tribunal concluded that the Claimant and Mr Evans undertook “like work.”

Disputes Concerning Claimant’s Office Return Arise

The Claimant attended work several times during her maternity leave under “keep in touch” (KIT) days. She used this time to negotiate her office return with her manager. According to the Claimant, it was agreed that she would initially go back to work twice a week, four hours a day, for a few months, before returning to her original hours. This arrangement was verbally agreed upon by her manager and later orally approved by the Respondent’s operations director.

However, on 27 March 2023, the Claimant received correspondence from the Respondent stating, “I would just like to inform you that Darren was unfortunately made redundant earlier in the month, and Ben [the Claimant’s manager] has now parted company with Echo.” It also requested that she confirm her return to work intentions and outlined that the office she worked in was temporarily closed.

The Claimant responded, setting out the plans she’d previously agreed to with her manager. Yet, when the Respondent provided a further response on 3 April, it said, “We are unable to accommodate a part-time position…We, unfortunately, would require you to return five days per week full-time.”

Knowing that she’d previously agreed to a phased office return, the Claimant was unhappy with the Respondent’s reply. She quickly objected to the email the same day, and raised a grievance on 6 April before handing in her notice of resignation on 18 April.

In her resignation, she stated that she felt “led on” after being given “false promises” by her superiors about her return to work. While the Respondent requested that she reconsider her decision, stating, “You are a valued member of the team,” the Claimant held firm.

Office Return: Claimant Returns to Vacant Office Before Raising Claims

The Claimant’s final day of employment was confirmed to be 16 May. She attended the Respondent’s Hereford office on 1 May to complete her notice period, but when she arrived, the office was empty.

Unbeknownst to her, the office had experienced a water leak a month earlier, forcing the Respondent to vacate it. However, this wasn’t communicated; she only discovered what had happened when she asked staff at Greggs, next door. Greggs workers informed her that a “removals van had recently attended and taken everything.” At this point, the Claimant assumed she wasn’t expected to work her notice, but she still expected to be paid.

Then, after receiving no updates on her grievance, she chased the Respondent for a response on 26 June. This led to a telephone grievance meeting on 18 August, during which the Respondent allegedly blamed the Claimant for not getting the office return agreement she’d verbally made with her manager in writing. Following the meeting, no grievance outcome was provided, nor was the right to appeal offered.

Consequently, after receiving an Acas early conciliation certificate on 6 September, the Claimant initiated employment tribunal proceedings on 28 September. Her claims comprised:

  • Constructive unfair dismissal
  • Automatic unfair dismissal for a reason connected with pregnancy, maternity or childbirth
  • Breach of contract
  • Equal pay
  • Breach of the maternity equality clause
  • Discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy
  • Unauthorised deductions from wages
  • Unpaid holiday pay

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Pregnancy and Maternity Discrimination Found

Following the proceedings, the employment tribunal began by assessing the alleged unfavourable treatment the Claimant faced. The tribunal found that the Respondent had failed to confirm the Claimant’s maternity dates or pay until 11 January 2023. By this time, she had already completed the majority of her leave.

Furthermore, the tribunal found the Respondent had broken the verbal agreement with the Claimant concerning her office return with her manager and didn’t inform her about the Hereford office being vacant for repairs. It also ruled that the Claimant didn’t receive notice pay and that she resigned due to the broken oral agreement. In each case, the tribunal concluded the Claimant had experienced less favourable treatment.

As such, the tribunal turned to the Claimant’s pregnancy and maternity discrimination claim. It stated that, under the Equality Act 2010, discrimination occurs when a woman is treated unfavourably during or after her protected period due to her pregnancy. In the Claimant’s case, the protected period was approximately between September 2021 (when she became pregnant) and 30 April 2023 (when her maternity leave ceased).

While the tribunal dismissed that the failure to provide the maternity leave and pay information and notice pay amounted to pregnancy and maternity discrimination, it found the other instances of unfavourable treatment did. In each case, going back on the verbal agreement, not informing her of the vacant office, and the resignation, all arose because the Claimant was pregnant or on maternity leave. As a result, pregnancy and maternity discrimination were found.

Claimant Awarded over £25k

Moving on, the tribunal briefly discussed the Claimant’s constructive unfair dismissal claim. It noted that this was primarily influenced by the Respondent breaking her verbal agreement regarding going back to work. It explained how this agreement became a “fundamental term of her employment,” and its reversal likely destroyed the employment relationship. With this in mind, her constructive unfair dismissal claim was upheld—since it related to pregnancy, this was also a case of automatic unfair dismissal.

Despite the Claimant’s unauthorised deductions from wages and holiday pay claims being dismissed, she also succeeded with her claims concerning breach of contract, equal pay, and maternity equality clause (in part).

With regard to her breach of contract claim, the tribunal explained that the Claimant was entitled to her notice pay. While the Respondent argued she’d gone “AWOL” during this period, the tribunal stated this wasn’t the Claimant’s fault as she hadn’t been informed about the Hereford office being vacant. As for the equal pay claim, the tribunal reasoned that the Claimant and Mr Evans completed “like work.” Consequently, it ruled she was entitled to an annual salary of £25,000 from the date Mr Evans commenced maternity cover.

Following the Claimant’s successful ruling, she was awarded £25,109.92. Her compensation included an ACAS uplift of 7.5% due to the Respondent failing to provide an outcome concerning her grievance, and comprised injury to feelings, loss of earnings, and other damages.

Issues with Office Return? Get Help with Redmans

Thank you for reading this latest employment insight. If you believe your rights have been breached during or after your office return from maternity leave, contact us now. Redmans Solicitors are employment law specialists who can answer your queries and provide expert advice following a quick chat.

All you have to do to get started is: