RIta v Herbal Restaurants Ltd

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, originally from the Philippines, was employed as a Restaurant Manager at the Defendant's Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) restaurant since January 2006. In late October or early November 2006, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant's area manager of her pregnancy. A medical letter dated 28 November 2006 confirmed the Plaintiff was 14 weeks pregnant at that time. The Plaintiff handed this letter to her manager, who denied receipt. Following notification, the area manager advised the Plaintiff to avoid heavy lifting and to take regular breaks, but no formal risk assessment was conducted at that stage.

There was conflicting evidence regarding staffing adjustments after the pregnancy notification. The manager claimed an additional staff member was employed to assist the Plaintiff, though records suggested such shifts existed prior to the pregnancy. Consequently, the Plaintiff continued to perform physically demanding tasks intermittently.

In December 2006, other staff complained that the Plaintiff was not contributing adequately. A meeting was held on 2 January 2007 with the Plaintiff, the area manager, and the Human Resources (HR) manager. The Plaintiff requested suspension on full pay for medical reasons, which was declined. Instead, she was transferred to a lighter-duty position at another restaurant with daytime shifts only.

On 3 January 2007, an independent health and safety advisor conducted a formal risk assessment, recommending avoidance of manual handling, hourly breaks, and no late shifts. These recommendations were implemented at the new location.

In January 2007, with her doctor’s consent, the Plaintiff traveled to the Philippines and returned with her young son before reaching six months of pregnancy. She gave birth prematurely to twins on 19 February 2007 in Dublin due to insufficient neonatal facilities locally. The male twin died, causing significant distress. Difficulties arose in processing maternity and sick pay due to delayed submission of required medical forms, which were only received by the Defendant on 7 March 2007.

Upon returning to work, the Plaintiff lodged a grievance alleging delayed risk assessment and impediments to maternity pay. The Defendant investigated and rejected the grievance.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the informal discussion and advice given by the Defendant’s area manager constituted a lawful risk assessment under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000.
2. Whether the delay in conducting a formal risk assessment amounted to sex discrimination under the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976.
3. Whether the Plaintiff suffered detriment as a result of the Defendant’s failure to conduct a timely risk assessment.
4. Whether the Defendant unlawfully discriminated against the Plaintiff on grounds of race in relation to the delay in receiving maternity pay, pursuant to the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The tribunal first examined whether the initial discussion and advice provided by the area manager constituted a formal risk assessment under the relevant health and safety regulations. It concluded unanimously that this informal discussion did not meet the statutory requirements, as it was neither recorded nor sufficiently comprehensive in assessing specific workplace risks.

The tribunal acknowledged that a proper risk assessment was eventually carried out on 3 January 2007 by an independent advisor, but found the two-month delay from notification to formal assessment unreasonable in the context of pregnancy-related protections.

Relying on precedent, the tribunal held that such delay amounted to sex discrimination. It further analyzed whether the Plaintiff suffered detriment from this failure, concluding that the delay caused hardship, including workplace tension and delayed transfer to lighter duties, which may have mitigated the difficulties earlier.

Regarding the race discrimination claim related to maternity pay delays, the tribunal found no evidence supporting discriminatory intent or conduct. It recognized the Plaintiff’s difficult circumstances but attributed delays to procedural and regulatory challenges rather than racial discrimination.

In assessing compensation for injury to feelings, the tribunal considered the size and resources of the Defendant, the absence of medical evidence linking work to the tragic loss of the Plaintiff’s child, and applied established guidance to award £2,000 for injury to feelings without interest.

Holding and Implications

The tribunal UPHELD the Plaintiff's claim of sex discrimination based on the Defendant's failure to carry out a timely and proper risk assessment following notification of pregnancy. It found that this failure caused detriment to the Plaintiff.

The tribunal DISMISSED the Plaintiff's race discrimination claim due to lack of evidence.

The Defendant was ordered to pay £2,000 in compensation for injury to feelings related to the sex discrimination claim. No interest was awarded on this sum. The decision does not establish new precedent but reaffirms the statutory duty of employers to conduct timely risk assessments for pregnant employees and the consequences of failing to do so.