A pregnant employee who successfully suggested the transport company Eddie Stobart for £ 10,000 after being made superfluous during her maternity leave, has reduced her payment to £ 2,000.
During the original tribunal, which was held between March and May 2023, it was heard that Caitlin Graham received £ 10,000 after the truck company decided that they would lose their planning activities in Scotland.
Mrs Graham claimed that she had been unfairly fired by the company after she had informed them that she had become pregnant in October 20, 2021 and became superfluous the next May.
A total of nine planners were made unnecessary, with four new Transport Shift Manager (TSM) roles created in their place – a role that Mrs Graham said she should have been given her as a priority over others who were not on maternity leave.
The expectant mother had interviewed the TSM role, who paid £ 31,000 a year – £ 4,000 more than her earlier role – but was informed after her maternity leave started on April 2022 that she was not successful.
She e -mailed the company and spoke with managers to complain about her failed application on the TSM role, but a tribunal found both e -mails sent in April and May were blocked by the company's IT system as a security risk.
This meant that nobody saw them, and her complaints -e -mails went without attention, because she was later made superfluous on 26 May 2022.
Now a tribunal judge of the Work by Appeal ruled its original payment of £ 10,000, which was awarded for 'injury to feelings' was 'clearly excessive'.
Pregnant employee, Cailtin Graham, who successfully suggested the transport company Eddie Stobart, has reduced her payment by £ 8,000 (file image)
A tribunal judge of an employment has since ruled its original payment of £ 10,000, which was awarded for 'injury to feelings' was 'clearly excessive' (shown: Edinburgh Tribunal Service)
The judge found that the tribunal gave 'insufficient' reasons for his decision to give Mrs. Graham the amount it did.
The employment tribunal also took into account a part of her claim they had rejected when they were working out the amount of compensation.
The Appeal Tribunal, which took place in Edinburgh, reduced Mrs. Graham with £ 8,000 due to injury to feelings instead.
On July 19, 2022, Mrs Graham claimed that she had been unfairly rejected because the TSM role was a suitable vacancy that should have been given her as a priority above others who were not on pregnancy leave.
Earlier it was reported that Eddie Stobart successfully argued at the tribunal that the TSM role was not 'suitable' as a replacement role for her because she did not have the required management experience.
The employment tribunal rejected all its claims, including victimization and unfair dismissal, and agreed with Eddie Stobart that the TSM roles were not 'suitable' for her.
The only prize that the tribunal gave was with regard to the injury to her feelings after the company failure to “ask her about the content of her complaints and to check with her why it wasn't received.”
Judge Barry Clarke of employment, however, discovered that the original employment tribunal had wrongly taken into account its upset about the wider process.
This included 'the failure of [Eddie Stobart] To take her position seriously that she had the right to get the TSM role as a suitable vacancy '.
The judge discovered that her complaint had been rejected in this respect by the tribunal, so it was 'perverse' to take it into account.
It also contained no interest, as it should be – the judge said, “Wrong, it was unable to even consider it.”
The tribunal 'also did not explain why it established the number of £ 10,000', and Judge Clarke decided instead to grant her £ 2,000 in compensation.
The judge found that the tribunal gave 'insufficient' reasons for his decision to give Mrs Graham the amount it did
The judge discovered: 'Upon arrival on that amount, I keep in mind that I said above, but especially the limited scope of the illegal behavior that injured her feelings: namely the missed opportunities to ask her about the content of her grievances And to check with her why it was not received.
'Nothing else in the way she was made superfluous resulted in illegal behavior that can sound in compensation.
'The plaintiff was upset that her grievances had been missed, but this cannot be merged with her angry about the broader process that concludes with the termination of her employment.
'Her upset was sincere but fleeting and resulted on her feelings on the basis of the proof that she gave.
'I would have considered a lower amount, but I have settled £ 2,000, do the best thing I can do, because – just like the ET – I am willing to deduce some extra injury resulting from the fact that the plaintiff her Grievances at a time when she should have enjoyed her maternity leave. '
Mrs Graham received a total of £ 2,169, including interest.
