And speaking of making careful plans brings me to the case of Osborn v Mothercare Global Brand Ltd, and a distinct lack of care for a mother.

Mrs Osborn was employed by Mothercare Global Brand Ltd as a technical manager from April 2016 until the termination of her employment in December 2021.

In 2017, Mrs Osborn took 12 months of maternity leave. Her role was advertised externally, and maternity cover was appointed for the duration of the leave. During this period, she maintained regular contact with her line management and was kept informed about activities in the office.

In January 2019, she was promoted to the position of Technical and CSR Manager. She assumed additional responsibilities, including line managing a team of six and overseeing CSR duties, although her M2 grade remained unchanged.

Mrs Osborn became pregnant around August or September 2019. Her maternity leave ran from 22 May 2020 to 21 May 2021. Once her maternity leave ended, she took annual leave before returning to work on 29 June 2021.

When Mrs Osborn enquired about the need for maternity cover, she was told that it was unnecessary, as her line manager assured her that he would support the team. However, over time, and with the COVID pandemic causing the business to close over the lockdown period, it became apparent that cover would, in fact, be required for technical issues.

Mrs Osborn’s husband, a consultant, was offered the opportunity to join the team and accepted the offer, working for the employer from 24 April 2020 until 27 October 2020. Towards the end of his engagement, another consultant was brought in.

Prior to Mrs Osborn’s return from maternity leave, several structural changes were proposed to reshape the technical team, including the removal of a significant part of Mrs Osborn’s role, which was reallocated to others. She was not informed about any of these changes. Upon her return on 29 June 2021, the office had moved to a new location, and she no longer had access to a pass or parking space.

On 22 July 2021, Mrs Osborn emailed the new Chief Product Officer requesting an introductory meeting, as she had not yet met her following her return to work, due to the Chief Product Officer being on annual leave for the first two weeks. Prior to this meeting, it was decided that Mrs Osborn would be informed that her role was being made redundant. Mrs Osborn’s superiors had discussed the removal of her role via WhatsApp in the days leading up to this.

A letter dated 23 July 2021 was issued to Mrs Osborn, inviting her to an individual consultation meeting on 29 July 2021. In total, there were four consultation meetings, with the final one taking place on 24 November 2021.

Mrs Osborn was offered the opportunity to apply for a different role, the Head of Technical, however, she questioned the job description, as it appeared almost identical to her current role. Mrs Osborn subsequently lodged a grievance, including an allegation that the failure to offer her a suitable alternative role constituted a clear act of maternity discrimination.

On 3 December 2021, Mrs Osborn’s received a letter regarding the redundancy consultation outcome and her grievance complaint which stated that as she had not applied for the Head of Technical role before the submission date, her employment had been terminated. Shortly afterwards the employer advertised for the Head of Technical role and the consultant who was brought onboard applied and was successful.

On 5 February 2022, following a period of early conciliation from 7 December 2021 to 12 January 2022, Mrs Osborn filed claims for automatically unfair dismissal, unfair dismissal, maternity discrimination, and direct sex discrimination to the Employment Tribunal.

The ET concluded that Mrs Osborn had been unfairly dismissed and discriminated against, as she was treated unfavourably for exercising her right to additional maternity leave. The other claims were dismissed.

The ET found that there was no genuine redundancy situation, noting that the Chief Product Officer had decided to replace her with the new consultant while she was on maternity leave. Overall, the ET described the redundancy situation as a 'sham’.

In conclusion, this case underscores the importance of handling redundancies in a fair and lawful manner. The decision to terminate an employee’s job should not be made prior to the consultation process, and alternative solutions or opportunities for redeployment within the company should be fully explored. Additionally, the selection criteria must be fair and objective.