Office worker who went on maternity leave for 28 months and refused to return to work has unfair dismissal and discrimination case thrown out

An workplace employee who misplaced her job after happening maternity depart for 28 months and refusing to return to work didn’t sue her bosses for unfair dismissal and discrimination.

Jowita Parsons spent two years and 4 months out of the workplace following two successive maternity leaves in addition to further depart for household points, an employment tribunal heard.

After greater than two years, Ms Parson’s line supervisor requested her for a particular return to work date which she failed to supply, saying she would solely return when her divorce and the sale of her home was accomplished.

She started her first maternity depart 4 weeks early, simply after she was issued with a disciplinary warning on account of ‘aggressive and inappropriate behaviour’, the tribunal heard.

Her lack of readability a couple of return date and her time away was mentioned to have led to disruption within the enterprise, which has simply 21 members of workers, and induced loads of stress to colleagues.

The tribunal heard Ms Parsons started working as an import coordinator for Newbury-based Worldwide Forest Merchandise Restricted – which offered ‘forest commodities’ like paper – in March 2019.

5 months later, Ms Parsons was known as into a gathering by her line supervisor, Ben Wallace, the place he raised issues about her punctuality and customary of labor.

Later that yr, Mr Wallace despatched her an e-mail a couple of mistake in her work and Ms Parsons complained – telling the tribunal the pair had ‘not bought off to the most effective of begins’.

This grievance failed and he or she was issued with a disciplinary warning for her ‘aggressive and inappropriate behaviour’ in direction of Mr Wallace.

4 days later, Ms Parsons requested to take maternity depart 4 weeks early.

Consequently Mr Wallace, who was within the Philippines on the time, needed to prepare cowl for her job – which concerned the administration of fulfilling and delivering orders – at brief discover.

The tribunal, held in Studying, Berkshire, mentioned: ‘This resulted in poor efficiency of the enterprise throughout this time and resulted in further stress to each him and the claimant’s colleagues.’

On March 25 2020, two days after the UK went into lockdown, Ms Parsons informed her boss she want to prolong her first maternity depart to 12 months.

She was on account of return to work in October that yr, nonetheless fell pregnant once more and requested her second interval of maternity depart proceed and be hooked up to the primary.

Her second maternity depart was on account of finish in November 2021, after it was prolonged due to a ‘household concern’.

Ms Parsons then requested for extra time without work which was granted – which means she wasn’t then on account of return to the workplace till the brand new yr.

By this level, the lady had carried out her parental position for six and a half months and had been on maternity depart for 2 years, two months and two weeks.

Mr Wallace knowledgeable her she would wish further coaching earlier than returning to work and requested a particular date she would return reasonably than leaving it open ended.

Ms Parsons was given a date to return, however she mentioned no and didn’t give any additional indication of when she would.

The tribunal mentioned: ‘She was requested whether or not it will be days, weeks or months till she might return and that was when she said she didn’t need to return till her divorce proceedings have been accomplished and the home sale had been finalised.’

In February 2022, her employment was terminated after she didn’t return to work.

She tried to sue the enterprise for unfair dismissal, discrimination on the grounds of being pregnant and discrimination on the grounds of intercourse however her claims have been all dismissed by the tribunal.

Employment decide Angela Shields said: ‘[Ms Parsons] was requested about her return to work and on eight separate events she categorically said that she was not capable of return in any respect.

‘She was additional requested to place her various ideas to return to work, in writing. She didn’t achieve this at any time.

‘[Ms Parsons] was repeatedly requested to supply an inexpensive timeframe by which she would be capable to return to work. She was not capable of present an inexpensive timeframe.

‘Moreover, she said on a number of events that she wouldn’t be capable to return to work.

‘The explanation that the clamant was dismissed was as a result of she refused to return to work and [the company] might now not hold her position open indefinitely.

‘The tribunal have been additionally happy that there have been actual pressures on [the firm] to fulfil the position of import coordinator and to have [Ms Parsons] in her place and finishing the work… there was a real disruption and overburdening of a small firm while [she] was not in her position.’