When you subscribe we will use the information you provide to send you these newsletters. Sometimes they’ll include recommendations for other related newsletters or services we offer. Our Privacy Notice explains more about how we use your data, and your rights. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Yuliia Khimicheva was sacked by a “discourteous” letter that used her initial rather than first full name, a tribunal was told. She had been forced to take time off work due to an illness related to her pregnancy. She claimed that when she was fired her manager told her “we are not a charity who pay people who don’t work”. Ms Khimicheva worked as a magazine finisher at Key Promotions (UK) Ltd, a company involved in packing books and magazines.
An employment tribunal held in Ashford, Kent, heard she joined the business in March 2019. She was still on her probationary period when on July 9 she told her manager, Caroline Edwards, that she would be having a baby.
The tribunal heard that Mrs Edwards responded by saying, “I’m too busy for this.”
She claimed she already had concerns about Ms Khimicheva’s performance at work and that she was also absent, with an illness related to her pregnancy, on numerous occasions.
On July 26, Mrs Edwards spoke to Ms Khimicheva and informed her that she was to be dismissed.
In aletter addressed to “Y Khimicheva”, Mrs Edwards stated: “As your production was lower than it should be after such time your attendance started to fall behind. As a result being very busy with work and your continued absence I have decided this job is not working for you or for the company.”
Employment Judge Martha Street found that Mrs Edwards knew of the pregnancy before the date she decided to dismiss Ms Khimicheva, adding: “That would point to
the pregnancy being a factor in her thinking.”
Judge Street concluded: “As a pregnant woman under dismissal, Ms Khimicheva is entitled to a statement of reasons for dismissal and the reasons are mentioned only briefly and in the most general terms.”
Ms Khimicheva was found to have been unfairly dismissed and discriminated against because of her pregnancy. The company was ordered to pay her a total of £14,820.
Source: Read Full Article