An HR assistant - Miss L Musguin - was found to have been unfairly denied a pay rise because she was intending to take maternity leave in four months’ time.

Employment Judge Alison Russell heard the case which Miss Musguin brought against her employer - Breyer Group Plc - at the East London Hearing Centre.

The tribunal heard that Miss Musguin commenced her employment as an HR advisor in July 2017 and was awarded an increase in salary in January 2018 - bringing it to £30,000 for a 40-hour week.

From June 2019 until August 2020, Miss Musguin was on maternity leave with her first child. Just prior to her return to work, The Head of Human Resources - Ms Dyer - left Breyer Group Plc, creating a vacancy for her position. Miss Musguin was contacted and asked if she was interested in applying for the position, which she declined to do. The position was filled by Mr Rayat, who had been the Recruitment Manager.

In June 2020. whilst Miss Musguin was on her first maternity leave her junior, an HR coordinator, also went on maternity leave. That position was filled by a recruit, who was employed on a fixed term contract and offered £27,000 per year - which was ultimately raised to £28,000 per year in order to fill the vacancy. Later, on becoming a permanent position, this was decreased to £27,000.

Miss Musguin found it unfair that there was only a £3,000 difference between her salary as an HR assistant and the more junior role - telling the tribunal that it undervalued her work and her experience.  She discussed this with the Head of HR, Mr Rayat, and he agreed to make a case for a raise in her salary at his next meeting. Miss Musguin gave Mr Rayat permission to share - at the meeting - the fact that she was pregnant.

At the weekly HR meeting with the Finance Director, Mr Fisher and Managing Director, Mr Breyer, the request was put forward by Mr Rayat. Mr Fisher denied it was because Miss Musguin was due to commence a period of maternity leave and would only be in the business for another four months, that a pay rise was not feasible.

Miss Musguin informed the tribunal that Mr Rayat had told her of the outcome and the reason for the decision, telling her that as they were friends and he respected her, he did not want to lie to her. The tribunal accepted this evidence as it was confirmed by messages sent and received between Ms Dyer and Miss Musguin.

After the meeting, Mr Rayat created a new business proposal in which Miss Musguin would receive an increase of £2,000 from 1 September 2020 provided she assumed additional responsibilities. This would justify the increase and create a greater difference in salary between her position and that of her junior.

The tribunal stated that there was nothing improper in this approach and nor was it in any way related to her pregnancy or intention to take maternity leave.

Miss Musguin, however, did not agree that the difference in pay reflected the value of her greater experience and skills. She then went on sick leave, producing a certificate stating that she was suffering from work-related stress in pregnancy and submitted a grievance which she took to tribunal.

Judge Russell found that the refusal of a pay rise was unfavourable treatment and an act of overt discrimination. 

She said:

“Even if she was not entitled to a pay rise, the refusal to exercise discretion in favour of giving a pay rise because of impending maternity leave is clearly unfavourable.”

The award of the tribunal was £9,000 for injury to feelings, with interest calculated from 24 August 2020.

The other claims of unlawful discrimination, unauthorised deduction of wages and/or breach of contract in respect of company sick pay and unfair dismissal were all dismissed.

Samantha Dickinson - Equality and Diversity Partner at Mayo Wynne Baxter - said:

“Most employers would not take such a stance or, if they did, their legal advisors would… persuade them to resolve the matter before it comes in front of a judge.”

She added:

“The clear message here to employers - aside from the obvious which is don’t discriminate - is to keep written records of meetings and decisions.”