Case Study 1: Discrimination towards pregnant workers - unreasonable offer of alternative work

This case involves three pregnant women who approached us for assistance when their employer treated them unfairly as a result of their pregnancies. In this case, the respondent is an agency providing staff for a large supermarket chain.

All three clients had been working in a warehouse until they notified their employer of their pregnancies. Soon after this their employer advised each of them that due to health and safety they could no longer work on the warehouse floor. A risk assessment was carried out by the employer's Human Resources department.

Each of the clients was offered alternative work (light duties) at their employer's offices in Liverpool. This would have involved considerable travel for all three clients, up to three hours each way.  Initially the clients were offered the same working hours, so in addition to their normal working day they were faced with a six-hour round trip.

The clients rejected the offer and all obtained and provided GP notes saying due to their pregnancies they could not make such a journey. In response, their employer cut down their working hours, meaning the clients would have fewer hours to work and subsequently would also have less income.

Again, all three clients refused this arrangement. Following their refusal all three clients were advised that due to their refusal to comply with the arrangements made by their employer they would be placed on sick leave but would not be paid.

At this point, all three women approached our team. Following their appointments, we submitted a claim to the Employment Tribunal on the basis that their employer's treatment of them was discriminatory, that it is unlawful to put employees on sick leave against their will when they are not actually sick, and that the offer of alternative work did not constitute a real offer of alternative work.

We went through the process of requesting details of the employer's policies, of who carried out the risk assessment, the background of that person, the conclusion, the evidence gathered regarding the clients' medical state and the journey details. The employer was not reasonable in its approach to settlement, so the case proceeded to a full trial over two days.

The Tribunal concluded that the offer of work in Liverpool was not in any way reasonable even for someone who was not pregnant. The offer was not a genuine one and a reasonable alternative should have been given closer to the clients' homes.

The Tribunal also concluded that the policy of placing the clients on sick leave was discriminatory as the clients were not sick. Alternative work should have been provided or the clients should have been placed on maternity suspension pay and paid their normal salary until they were able to go on maternity leave.

The clients were awarded £2000 for loss of income while the proceedings took place and £4000 as compensation for being discriminated against. The clients have been paid and placed on maternity leave.

[MORE TO FOLLOW]