Welcome back to this week’s case of the week.  If you missed our January newsletter, click here.  My name is Renee and this week we are looking at a case concerning the compensation awarded by an Employment Tribunal (ET) to the Claimant for injury to feelings in the case of Eddie Stobart Limited v Graham.

Background

The Claimant worked as a Planner for the Respondent from July 2021 until her dismissal in May 2022. She informed her employer of her pregnancy in October 2021.

In March 2022, the Respondent decided to restructure, leading to the redundancy of all nine planners. They introduced four new “Transport Shift Manager” (TSM) roles.

The Claimant brought a claim under the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999 (MAPLE) to be provided with a suitable alternative role without competition. The company deemed the TSM roles unsuitable and required her to attend an interview.

The Claimant started maternity leave on 12 April 2022 and was interviewed for a TSM role the next day. The Claimant was unsuccessful. On 26 April 2022, she filed a grievance, which was not acknowledged due to the employer’s IT firewall blocking her emails.

On 26 May 2022, her employment was terminated due to redundancy. She later mentioned the grievance issue to HR, but no action was taken.

The Claimant commenced proceedings on 19 July 2022, arguing that her dismissal was automatically unfair under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and that she was subjected to maternity discrimination.

The Respondent argued that the failure to address her grievance was an IT issue, not related to her maternity leave.

The Employment Tribunal (ET) examined the remedy and acknowledged the limited success of the Claimant’s claim. It did not award any compensation for pecuniary loss; the only award was for injury to her feelings.

The ET found that the Claimant was distressed by both the way her redundancy was handled and the failure of her employer to address her grievance.

The ET awarded £10,000 for injury to feelings, based on the claimant’s evidence of “a degree of upset.”

The Respondent appealed against the compensation award.

The first ground of appeal was the award of £10,000 was excessive to the point of being perverse. The Respondent’s reasoning was that the failure to address the grievance was an isolated incident. Secondly, the Claimant had initially requested £15,000 but was unsuccessful in most of her claims. Lastly, the compensation was disproportionate to the level of distress suffered.

 

The second ground of appeal was the ET’s reasoning for the £10,000 award was inadequate and not compliant with Meek v Birmingham City Council [1987] IRLR 250. The Respondent claimed it was unclear how the ET arrived at this specific sum.

The EAT

One of the key errors in the ET’s reasoning was its lack of explanation for the specific amount awarded. While the ET stated that it had considered the Vento bands, it did not provide any detailed analysis of how serious the claimant’s distress was or why it justified an award at the lower end of the middle band. The only upheld claim related to the employer’s failure to properly address the claimant’s grievance due to an IT issue. This was a procedural failing rather than substantive discrimination, and there was no evidence of lasting impact on the Claimant’s work, health, or personal life.

According to these findings, the EAT replaced its own assessment of the appropriate compensation. It determined that the claimant’s distress was genuine, but fleeting, and as such a lower award was appropriate. The compensation was reduced to £2,000, placing it within the lower Vento band (£990 – £9,900).

The EAT also addressed the issue of interest, which the ET had failed to consider. The ET’s judgment was calculated from 26 May 2022, one month after the grievance was submitted (allowing a reasonable period for a response), to 14 June 2023, the date of the ET’s judgment. This covered a 385-day period, and at an interest rate of 8% per year, amounted to an additional £169.

As a result, the final amount awarded to the claimant was £2,169 (£2,000 compensation plus £169 interest), which the Respondent was ordered to pay.

Takeaway Points

Employees should be aware that compensation for Injury to Feelings should be justified. Simply referring to Vento bands is insufficient without explaining how the evidence supports the specific award.

Limited evidence can reduce the amount awarded by the Tribunal. The Claimant’s evidence of distress was minimal, only stating that she was “shocked and upset.” No evidence suggested long-term emotional harm, impact on work or personal life, which led to the reduction of the award.