The owners of a Spalding food store have been ordered to pay a former staff member more than £10,000 after sacking her and not believing her GP sick notes when she was ill during her pregnancy.
Joanna Kusmierek had been working at Spalding Market when she became pregnant in February 2020.
Despite showing her bosses sick notes from her GP, they didn’t believe she was ill and thought she was ‘taking the money,’ an employment tribunal was told.
The shop worker was having difficulties with her pregnancy and was signed off sick by a GP from March 30.
She had been ‘increasingly’ visiting hospital due to her pregnancy, a fact confirmed by a colleague.
She was ‘taken aback’ to receive her P45 in June telling her she had been sacked.
Mohammed Kadir, director of Spalding Market, and manager Rabar Ibrahim, were ordered to pay her £10,000 in compensation along with more than £500 in unpaid wages.
Mrs Kusmierek’s husband Leszek had taken all three sick notes from a GP to the store. He also had a conversation with Mr Kadir during a visit.
His wife’s work involved re-stocking and frequently carrying items up and down stairs from the first floor, the tribunal was told.
She went on to have her baby prematurely in September 2020.
Initially both the store manager and director denied knowing about any sick notes or conversations.
Mrs Kusmierek made a claim for unfair dismissal and Spalding Market sent £4,000 in ‘maternity pay.’
But the tribunal questioned why the company sent the money if it had dismissed her.
“What is of concern is the evidence clearly given by Rabar but also endorsed in his comments to us by Mo (Mohammed) that he and Mo did not believe the claimant’s sick note,” says the tribunal’s report.
The tribunal “makes plain that it found the evidence of the claimant and her husband consistent and compelling. In contrast, the respondent’s evidence was on many occasions contradictory.”
Mr Kadir had been of the view that Mrs Kusmierek had been “lying on back and taking the money.” according to the tribunal’s official report.
With a poor understanding of English, the shop worker thought her money had reduced because she was receiving sick pay when the company was actually claiming furlough, despite the fact food stores were exempt.
She “was totally unaware what furlough meant,” the tribunal recorded.
“The tribunal is extremely concerned the respondent has, on his own evidence, improperly exploited the furlough regulations.”
Referring to the ‘non-existent employment procedures’ the tribunal said the respondent was ‘not providing written particulars of employment.’
