A former recruitment consultant has been awarded more than £25,000 following a successful claim for maternity and pregnancy discrimination against her employer, Echo Personnel.
Anna Munkevics had been working as a trainee recruitment consultant at Echo Personnel’s Hereford office since March 2021, earning £21,250 annually. She began her maternity leave in April 2022 after informing her employer of her pregnancy in September 2021.
While she was on leave, a maternity cover was appointed in her position. The tribunal heard that one of the employees hired as cover began on a salary of £25,000 per year, performing the same role.
Part-time agreement rescinded
Discussions between Ms Munkevics and her line manager, Ben Diston, took place during her maternity leave regarding her return to work. These included a range of options, including part-time roles and potential promotions. An agreement was reached for her to return to her previous position on a temporary part-time basis: two days a week, four hours a day, before gradually resuming full-time work.
She visited the Hereford office in December 2022 to confirm this arrangement. Both Mr Diston and his manager agreed that it could be accommodated. Ms Munkevics subsequently arranged childcare in anticipation of her return to work based on this agreement.
However, in March 2023, Echo Personnel’s finance director, Jennie Alexander, informed Ms Munkevics of staffing changes, stating that Mr Diston had left the company and that a new manager was being sought. Ms Munkevics responded by reminding the company of her agreed part-time return, as well as mentioning and the childcare challenges involved in securing full-time nursery care for children under two.
Despite this, the company informed her that they could no longer offer part-time hours and required her to return to a full-time schedule. The tribunal found that this effectively reneged on the previous agreement made with Mr Diston.
Office closure without notice ‘breach of trust’, tribunal finds
Ms Munkevics resigned later that month, stating she felt misled by the company’s management. In May 2023, when she returned to the Hereford site to work her notice period, she discovered the office had been vacated – and learned from staff at a nearby bakery that a removals van had recently taken everything from the premises. She had received no communication by the company regarding the office closure.
A tribunal held in Birmingham heard that Ms Munkevics had not been provided with an outcome to her grievance and had received no explanation or instruction as to where she should report. It was noted that she could have been directed to work from a mobile recruitment van used by the company during office maintenance, but no such arrangements were communicated.
Employment judge Jonathan Gidney ruled that the failure to inform Ms Munkevics of the office closure was due to her pregnancy and recent rejection of the part-time hours agreement. The judge said it was difficult to understand why no attempt was made to inform her about the change in work location, especially prior to the end of her maternity leave.
He concluded that the firm’s actions amounted to a breach of trust and confidence and that the verbal agreement about her return had been disregarded without cause. The revocation of the agreed working hours and the lack of meaningful discussion about her situation were judged to be discriminatory.
The tribunal upheld claims of constructive dismissal, maternity and pregnancy discrimination, equal pay, breach of contract and automatic unfair dismissal on grounds connected with pregnancy. Ms Munkevics was awarded £25,109.92 in compensation. Other claims were dismissed.
Alessandra Pacelli is a journalist and author contributing to HRreview, where she covers topics including labour market trends, employment costs, and workplace issues.
- Alessandra Pacelli
- Alessandra Pacelli
- Alessandra Pacelli
- Alessandra Pacelli
