Tribunal rules pregnant M&S bakery worker was unfairly dismissed

A bakery worker at Marks & Spencer was unfairly dismissed from her job due to her pregnancy, an employment tribunal has ruled.

Following a hearing held at Watford Employment Tribunal on 4 and 5 March 2025, the panel unanimously concluded that the act of dismissal amounted to unfavourable treatment under section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Nilgun Kayahan Kolan had been employed by M&S for a short period in October 2023 at the in-store bakery of its Watford branch. The tribunal heard how it had been agreed prior to Kolan starting work that she would not have to lift anything heavier than 5kg because of a back problem. She had progressed through induction and baking training from 15 to 24 October at Brent Cross and Uxbridge stores but had quickly encountered issues when transferred to Watford.

Two days later after starting work there, Kolan messaged Watford store manager Caroline Bowie that she had been required to lift heavy packages causing her to experience pain in her back and groin. She’d also referred to a “tense environment in which she was expected to know and do everything and under pressure because she did not speak English very well”, the tribunal heard – Kolan spoke through a Turkish language interpreter in court.

Bowie was said to have responded the same day, saying it had been an “unprecedented situation” in Watford due to a staff absence and had instructed Kolan to come in the next day with the promise that “things should be better organised”.

Key evidence in Kolan’s witness statement revealed that, during a subsequent conversation on 30 October with Bowie, she had finally disclosed her pregnancy and was expecting her superior to acknowledge her concerns and discuss possible adjustments. However, she claimed Bowie’s “face dropped” upon finding out she was pregnant.

“She immediately dismissed me, stating: ‘I’m sorry, we don’t have any suitable jobs for you’,” said Kolan. “She did not ask a single question about my pregnancy, my health, or whether I needed support. She made no effort to discuss alternative roles, reasonable adjustments.”

It became clear to Kolan that her pregnancy was the reason for her dismissal.

The tribunal heard that, after waiting for half an hour and then knocking on Bowie’s office door, Kolan had asked ‘What can I do?” before being instructed to “leave your card and go”. She complied but noted she had not done so willingly as an act of resignation. “I was not given a formal termination letter, or notice period, or any right to appeal. I was being sent away without a single piece of paperwork or a proper explanation,” said the claimant.

Respondent’s statement

In her response, Bowie said that she had previously informed Kolan’s bakery colleague at Watford that she couldn’t carry heavy loads and that there should have always been at least one other person that could assist her. In addition, the manager claimed she had, in fact, passed on her congratulations to Kolan upon being told of her pregnancy on 30 October, noting she had discussed other roles Kolan could do at M&S who had refused to work on customer tills due to an insufficient level of English.

Bowie stated that, had Kolan wanted to stay in the bakery the retailer would have carried out a risk assessment and made adjustments accordingly. “However, we did not get to this stage, as the claimant resigned the same day,” added Bowie.

In its judgment published on 24 April, the tribunal found Kolan’s evidence to be credible and consistent, while deeming the evidence presented by Bowie less coherent. “While the words ‘I dismissed you’ or any similar words were not used, it is plain (on our factual findings) that the respondent (through Ms Bowie) unambiguously communicated to the claimant that her services were no longer required,” wrote the judge.

“The removal of the swipe card and locker key made that clear beyond peradventure,” it added. “With some reluctance, the tribunal concluded that there was no other explanation for this sudden change in behaviour than the revelation by the claimant of her pregnancy.” Accordingly, the tribunal concluded the reason for Kolan’s dismissal was her pregnancy and upheld her complaint.

A statement provided by M&S said the case had focussed on a conversation between a manager and a colleague where there was a disagreement as to what was said. “We support all our colleagues with families in a number of ways, for example by adjusting work and duties, giving paid time off to attend ante-natal appointments, paid neo-natal care, and enhanced maternity and other family leave pay,” stated a company spokesperson.