Pregnant woman unfairly fired from cleaning job – court
A WOMAN was unfairly fired after telling her employer she was pregnant, a court ruled.
A judge ruled that the boss of a kennel near Ulverston was unfair in letting go of the worker, named Ms T Donaldson, after saying she was pregnant.
The part-time cleaner was employed by Helan Greenhalf, trader of Roundhill custom boarding kennels.
Following a hearing, the judge ruled that the employee did not qualify for the standard unfair dismissal because she had not worked there for at least two years.
But the court ruled that she had been unfairly dismissed from her post and that her complaint of “unfavorable treatment” and that she had been discriminated against because of the protected characteristic of pregnancy was “well founded”.
The hearing was due to be held at the end of 2019, but was postponed and then further delayed due to Covid-19.
The court heard that the worker joined the company in June 2018.
During the first few months of work there, it was said there were “conduct and ability issues” including his late arrival for work, causing a minor injury to a dog and his inability to keep up. washing dogs and cleaning their water bowls.
But the employer gave Ms Donaldson the opportunity to “improve” while on probation.
In August 2018, the Barrow Council informed the company of new licensing guidelines that would put pressure on kennels and catteries to ensure their premises were as suitable as possible.
The employer claimed she warned Ms Donaldson at a meeting in October 2018 that she could be fired “due to the need to close a cattery and continuing business concerns over kennel refurbishment expenses. and the impact that could help in the short term to retain customers.
But the court ruled that this had not been discussed and accepted Ms Donaldson’s version of events.
She said she told her boss she was 10 weeks pregnant during the meeting.
A few days later Ms Donaldson met Ms Greenhalf and her partner and was told that they “would have to cancel a lot of dogs over the next few weeks and therefore could take care of this work on their own”.
The court ruled that they also said that they could not keep her because of her “pregnancy and their belief that it was too dangerous for her to continue working due to the dangers caused by the slippery surfaces and other health and safety issues “.
A report indicated that the salary arrears resulting from the dismissal had been paid by the employer.