BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Bailey v Photo Corporation (UK) Ltd (In... [2017] NIIT 01749_17IT (06 October 2017) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2017/01749_17IT.html Cite as: [2017] NIIT 01749_17IT, [2017] NIIT 1749_17IT |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 1749/17
CLAIMANT: Rebecca Bailey
RESPONDENT: Photo Corporation (UK) Ltd (In Liquidation)
DECISION
(A) The claimant's unfair dismissal claim is well-founded.
(B) The claimant's discriminatory dismissal claim (in respect of pregnancy discrimination within the meaning of Article 5A of the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976) is well-founded.
(C)
The claimant's claim in respect of discriminatory detriment (which was brought under Article 8 of the Sex Discrimination Order, in relation to pregnancy discrimination of the type which has already been mentioned above) is
well-founded.
(D) If and when the claimant asks for a remedies hearing to be held, the amounts of compensation due to the claimant, in respect of those claims, will be assessed.
(E) The claimant has withdrawn any other claims which are contained in her claim form. Accordingly, all of those other claims are dismissed.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Employment Judge (sitting alone): Employment Judge Buggy
Appearances:
The claimant was self-represented.
The Company was disbarred from participating in the proceedings, because it has not presented a response.
REASONS
1. I announced my decision at the end of the hearing. At the same time, brief oral reasons for that decision were given. What follows is by way of summary only.
2. On the basis of the oral testimony of the claimant, I was satisfied that her account, as set out at paragraph 7.4 of her claim form, is accurate. I am satisfied that the claimant was subjected to the various incidents of detrimental treatment which are described at that part of her claim form; that the relevant mistreatment constituted a breach of her contract of her employment; that that breach was a repudiatory breach; that the relevant mistreatment occurred during a period which is "a protected period" within the meaning of Article 5A of the Sex Discrimination Order; and that that treatment was meted out to her because she was pregnant.
Employment Judge:
Date and place of hearing: 29 September 2017, Belfast.
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:
