In Eddie Stobart Ltd v Graham the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has reduced a £10,000 injury to feelings award down to £2,000, after it found the original employment tribunal’s decision was ‘manifestly excessive’. 

What was the background? 

Ms Graham was employed by Eddie Stobart for just over 10 months, starting her role as a planner in July 2021.  In October 2021 Ms Graham informed the company she was pregnant and in March 2022 the company decided it would cease its planning function in Scotland, where Ms Graham was based.  They announced a 30-day consultation period in relation to 9 redundancies involving the planning role, replacing them with 4 new transport shift manager roles. 

Why did Ms Graham complain?  

Ms Graham asserted her right to be offered suitable alternative employment, as set out in the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999.  The Regulations state that employees on maternity leave should be offered any suitable alternative employment first and should not have to compete against other employees for it.  However, the company informed Ms Graham the transport shift manager roles were not suitable alternative employment, and she had to attend a competitive interview.  She was unsuccessful and raised a grievance.  Unfortunately, her grievance was blocked by the company’s firewall system and the HR department did not receive it.   She then made claims for automatic unfair dismissal and maternity discrimination to the employment tribunal. 

What did the original ET decide?  

The employment tribunal rejected the unfair dismissal claim, but did uphold the claim for maternity discrimination, deciding that the company failed to take adequate steps to deal with Ms Graham’s grievance.  They awarded her £10,000 for injury to feelings. 

The company appealed the decision, arguing that the award was so excessive as to be perverse.  It asserted that the failure to deal with the grievance was a one-off incident and administrative in nature and the award was disproportionate to the actual upset caused to Ms Graham. 

What did the EAT say? 

Firstly, the EAT found there was limited evidence in front of the tribunal concerning the upset caused to Ms Graham.  She had said she was ‘shocked and upset’, but there appeared to not be a substantial degree of injury caused to her.  Also, given that her unfair dismissal claim failed, her grievance did not have much merit and the EAT agreed with the company that it was a procedural, rather than a substantive failing based on a one-off incident.  Finally, the tribunal did not explain why it settled on a figure of £10,000, not setting out in detail how it had assessed Ms Graham’s injury. 

The company’s appeal was therefore allowed and the EAT substituted an award of £2,000 for injury too feelings to Ms Graham 

Why is this case important for employers?  

It is very unusual for the EAT to interfere with a tribunal’s decision on the level of an award for injury to feelings, given that it is very fact specific.  However, in this case the EAT did find the tribunal’s decision perverse, given the lack of assessment of Ms Graham’s ‘injury’ and the fact there was no substantial failure on the part of the company.  It demonstrates that respondents in discrimination cases, even if they ultimately lose, should be alive to analysing the tribunal’s decision on the level of any award.  In particular, the following should be considered: 

• The claimant’s own description of the injury they have allegedly suffered; 

• The consequences of the injury and the length of time it lasts; 

• The effect on the claimant’s future work prospects and quality of their personal life. 

In terms of trying to avoid such claims, employers need to ensure they go through a proper redundancy procedure and remember to deal properly with people who are absent from the workplace at the time, such as those on maternity leave and long-term sickness.  They will need to be provided with support and, if any grievance is raised, deal with it promptly and in full.   

In addition, we have recently had a case whereby an ex-employee’s subject access request for data email was blocked which led to problems for the employer as well.  Employers need to monitor their firewalls and filters to avoid missing important emails, as happened in this case. 

At View HR, we understand the complexities of employment law and the importance of handling sensitive matters such as redundancy and discrimination with care and compliance. Our team provides expert guidance on redundancy processes, grievance handling, and compliance with maternity and parental leave regulations. We also offer tailored training and support to help businesses navigate challenging situations effectively. To learn more about how we can support your organisation, visit www.viewhr.co.uk.