A pregnant recruitment employee has won more than £25,000 after bosses moved her workplace while she was on maternity leave and failed to tell her.
Anna Munkevics told a tribunal how after a year off to care for her newborn, she returned to her Hereford workplace only to find the building had been ‘cleared out’.
The mother was due to work out her notice period from the office after she resigned when bosses ‘reneged’ on an agreement that she could return to work on reduced hours.
Upon returning to the building, she was told by staff at a neighbouring Greggs that a removals van had recently attended and ‘taken everything’.
Ms Munkevics sued for maternity discrimination over the matter and a panel has now upheld her complaint.
The judge said it is ‘hard to understand’ why bosses did not tell Ms Munkevics that the office had been permanently closed and moved out of and ruled it was ‘because of’ her maternity and pregnancy.
The employment tribunal, held in Birmingham, heard Ms Munkevics started working as a trainee recruitment consultant for Echo Personnel in March 2021.
She was based at the Hereford office in Herefordshire and was paid a salary of £21,250.
Anna Munkevics was pictured in a photo her former firm Echo Personnel previously shared on the website LinkedIn ahead of her going on maternity leave
A claim for wrongful dismissal has been brought against recruitment firm Echo Personnel which previously had one of its offices in the centre of Hereford (pictured)
In September 2021, Ms Munkevics became pregnant with a baby girl and the expectant mother informed bosses of her news and started maternity leave in April the following year.
The tribunal heard that while she was off, bosses hired maternity cover who worked in the ‘same role’ as Ms Munkevics – with one employee they chose beginning on a salary of £25,000 per year.
During her maternity leave, Ms Munkevics visited her office and had discussions with her line manager Ben Diston about her return to work.
It was heard a number of ‘proposals’ were discussed, covering a wide range of alternatives – ranging from returning on just two days a week as a receptionist to returning as branch manager on a significantly increased salary.
The agreement eventually struck was for Ms Munkevics to return to her old role, for a few months at the rate of two days a week, four hours a day – while it was said that, after some months, she would return to her normal full time hours.
The tribunal heard she attended the office in December 2022 and spoke with both Mr Diston and his line manager, discussing the return to work agreement, and said they both ‘agreed that the company can easily accommodate this agreement’.
The ruling said that, ‘not surprisingly’, Ms Munkevics relied on the agreement reached with her bosses.
It was found she arranged childcare, adding that she was ‘entitled to make those arrangements and we find that she did so in good faith’.
Anna Munkevics has been awarded compensation by a tribunal in Birmingham (pictured)
In March 2023, Echo Personnel’s finance director Jennie Alexander wrote to the mother to ‘update’ her about ‘development’ at the Hereford office.
She said that Mr Diston had ‘parted company’ with the recruiters and they are currently looking for a new manager.
In response, the mother told Mrs Alexander of the agreement she had made with her line manager, and highlighted that it was ‘extremely difficult to find a full time nursery in Hereford which will take children under two years old’.
But the finance director said they could not ‘accommodate a part time position due to the nature of the job’ and so would ‘require you to return five days per week full time’.
The tribunal said the employers were ‘reneging’ on the agreement that had been reached with Mr Diston less than three weeks before her return to work date.
The judge said this was done with ‘very little opportunity’ for Ms Munkevics to arrange additional childcare for her daughter. Later that month, she resigned on notice.
The mother said: ‘I feel I have been led on by the directors with false promises.’
The tribunal heard that Ms Munkevics attended the office in May 2023 to work out her resignation but, upon arriving, found that it had been ‘vacated and abandoned’.
It was heard the mother checked with the staff at a nearby Greggs bakery store, who said that a removals van had recently attended and ‘taken everything’.
She told the panel that she had not been informed that the office had shut, and as far as she knew the businesses other two officers were ‘many, many miles away’.
The mother wrote to her boss and said she took the fact that the building had been ‘cleared out’ without notifying her indicated she was ‘not expected’ to work out her notice period.
The tribunal heard that there was a ‘mobile recruitment van’ from which she could have worked out her notice while the office was undergoing maintenance.
The mother was never provided with an outcome to her grievance and so she took her former employers to an employment tribunal for for maternity and pregnancy discrimination, among other claims.
On the office situation, employment judge Jonathan Gidney upheld her complaints – saying Mrs Alexander was ‘aware’ that the mother was due to return from her maternity leave on May 1.
He ruled: ‘We find it very hard to understand why Mrs Alexander did not write to [Ms Munkevics] in advance of that date, prior to the end of the protected period, (or cause someone else to) and explain that the Hereford office had been permanently closed and moved out of and that the claimant was to work from the mobile recruiting van until a new office was secured, and give her the van’s location and a means of access.
‘No explanation has been provided for this failure.
‘In the absence of any explanation, we find that the failure was because of [her] pregnancy and maternity and the recent rejection of [her] part time hours agreement.’
The judge also found the business had broken a ‘verbal agreement’ regarding her reduced hours on return from maternity, and he also upheld an allegation of constructive dismissal.
Mr Gidney said: ‘Mrs Alexander’s behaviour was calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence.
‘There was no reasonable and proper cause for it, in the absence of any attempt by Mrs Alexander to fairly explore and consider the request with [Ms Munkevics].
‘The revocation of the agreement reached was a fundamental breach of the implied contractual term of trust and confidence.’
Claims of equal pay, breach of contract and automatic unfair dismissal for a reason connected with pregnancy were upheld.
Ms Munkevics was awarded £25,109.92 in compensation, while other claims made by the mother were dismissed.
MailOnline has contacted Echo Personnel for comment.
