Underpaid Maternity Pay and Missing Payslips Trigger Constructive Dismissal

In Ms Maja Ginter v Bridge of Weir Care Home Limited, a receptionist was awarded over £10,000 after she was ignored and made to feel “invisible” while on maternity leave. Her claims for underpaid maternity pay and maternity and pregnancy discrimination succeeded, leading to the favourable ruling.

Below, we examine what happened and how the tribunal came to its decision. We also dive into the difference between maternity pay and maternity allowance, as well as upcoming changes in April 2025.

Please don’t hesitate to get in touch with Redmans Solicitors now if you have any related concerns. As employment law solicitors, we have specialist sector knowledge, allowing us to provide tailored advice to help solve your problem. To find out how we could help you, simply:

The Facts in Ms Maja Ginter v Bridge of Weir Care Home Limited

Background to Underpaid Maternity Pay Claim

Ms Maja Ginter (“the Claimant”) began working as a receptionist for Bridge of Weir Care Home Limited (“the Respondent”). Shortly after starting her role on 1 May 2022, she discovered she was pregnant. In November, she commenced annual leave, gave birth on 10 December, and began her maternity leave 10 days later.

When the Claimant commenced her employment, her manager was Ms Karen Armstrong. The pair shared a good working relationship, with the Claimant’s superior being “communicative and supportive” during her maternity. However, in March 2023, following Ms Armstrong’s “abrupt” departure, Ms Helen Maloy became her new manager.

The following month, the Claimant contacted the Respondent, requesting documentation following her separation from her partner. She spoke with Ms Maloy, whom she hadn’t spoken with before, and began by congratulating her on her new role. She then informed Ms Maloy that she would get back in touch shortly before she was due to return from maternity.

During proceedings, Ms Maloy alleged the Claimant had told her “she was not returning to work at the conclusion of her maternity leave.” Yet, given the Claimant’s circumstances at that time—having just taken on a full mortgage payment—and her consistent position throughout, the employment tribunal preferred the Claimant’s version of events.

Unfortunately, following this conversation, the Claimant neither heard from Ms Maloy again nor received the requested documentation. She attempted to contact Ms Maloy on several occasions, but was repeatedly unsuccessful and never received a call back. The tribunal believed Ms Maloy was likely “extremely busy managing the care home.”

Claim for Underpaid Maternity Pay is Made

The Claimant eventually obtained Ms Maloy’s email address on 28 July. At such time she asked Ms Maloy if she’d been able to get hold of the requested documents, stating, “If I don’t receive my payslips by the end of the week and p60, I won’t be able to re-mortgage for my house and I will be left with my child without real estate…”

She went on to explain that while her maternity leave finished on 25 September, she wanted to use her holidays, taking her leave up to 20 October. After that date, she stated she wanted to leave, making 20 October her last day of employment.

That same day, Mr B Mitchell, the Respondent’s Group HR Manager, responded to the Claimant. While he expressed disappointment in her decision, he respected it and asked what documents she required so that he could attempt to obtain them.

Then, on 30 September, the Claimant made a complaint about the treatment she’d faced, and by 6 October, she commenced employment tribunal proceedings. Among other things, her claims included underpaid maternity pay, constructive dismissal, and maternity and pregnancy discrimination. Following her resignation, the Claimant became a self-employed cleaner in late December, earning £502 fortnightly. 

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Following proceedings, the tribunal assessed the Claimant’s constructive dismissal claim. For this to be successful, it had to determine whether she resigned because her employer seriously breached their employment contract.

Firstly, the tribunal concluded that the Respondent was guilty of several breaches. The Respondent failed to provide the Claimant’s payslips and P60 “without good reason,” and didn’t stay in touch with her throughout her maternity leave. The Claimant’s appeals for documentation “fell on deaf ears,” and the Respondent’s conduct effectively made her “invisible.”

On both accounts, the tribunal considered these breaches very serious. This was particularly the case for the requested documentation. The Claimant required these documents because she was re-mortgaging following her separation from her partner, a matter the Respondent knew at the time. Consequently, the tribunal ruled that these failures amounted to fundamental breaches of her employment contract and that her resignation amounted to constructive dismissal.

Following this ruling, the tribunal then turned to the Claimant’s claims concerning underpaid maternity pay and maternity and pregnancy discrimination. In both cases, the outcome was clear. While the Respondent had no evidence to suggest the underpaid maternity pay claim was false, the treatment of the Claimant throughout her maternity period showed that discrimination had occurred. As such, the tribunal again ruled in the Claimant’s favour.

Following her successful ruling, the Claimant was awarded £10,422.04. This included, among other things, loss of earnings, injury to feelings, and underpaid wages.

Maternity Pay vs Maternity Allowance

Both Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) and Maternity Allowance (MA) provide financial support to individuals taking time off work due to pregnancy. That being said, they differ in terms of eligibility, payment sources, and amounts.

SMP is a statutory payment from employers for employees who have worked continuously for at least 26 weeks by the end of the 15th week before their due date and earn at least £123 weekly. Those eligible receive 39 weeks’ pay—90% of their average weekly earnings for the first six weeks, followed by the lower of the same or £184.03 weekly for the remainder. Said payments are subject to tax and National Insurance deductions, and a MATB1 certificate must be provided to prove pregnancy at least 15 weeks before the due date.

As for MA, this comes from the government and is available for specific individuals who don’t qualify for SMP. To be eligible for MA, individuals must have been employed or self-employed for at least 26 weeks in the 66 weeks before the due date and earn at least £30 weekly in any 13 of those 66 weeks (these don’t have to be consecutive weeks). Those eligible will receive the lower of £184.03 weekly or 90% of their average weekly earnings every two to four weeks for 39 weeks in total. Unlike SMP, MA isn’t subject to income tax, but a MATB1 certificate must again be provided.

Is Maternity Pay Going to Change in April 2025?

From 6 April 2025, changes to maternity allowance and pay will be made. It’s essential that employees understand these changes to ensure they don’t face underpaid maternity pay, whether because of a mistake or deliberate act.

The statutory entitlement for SMP (after the first six weeks) and MA will increase from £184.03 to £187.18, starting on 6 April. At the same time, the minimum earnings threshold for SMP will rise from £123 to £125 weekly. These changes have been made to keep pace with inflation and must be acknowledged to ensure that rights aren’t breached.

If you have any queries about the changes or your rights, make sure to contact Redmans Solicitors now. As expert employment law solicitors, we can answer your questions, discuss your circumstances, and guide those eligible through the legal process.

Begin your journey with us today by: