And speaking of ships in trouble brings me to the case of Carnival Plc v Hunter 2024, in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal examined the criteria for what may be considered a “suitable alternative vacancy” during redundancy processes.

Ms Hunter had been employed by Carnival Plc for approximately 13 years and had risen to the position of team leader at a contact centre, where she was one of 21 team leaders within the organisation. On 6 April 2020, Ms Hunter commenced maternity leave, although she had earlier taken annual leave, which ran into that maternity leave. 

On 29 April 2020, Carnival informed its employees of a large-scale redundancy exercise due to the COVID pandemic and its immediate effect on the cruise ship industry. Ms Hunter was among five team leaders, out of a pool of 21, selected for redundancy based on the scores allocated to them during the process.

Ms Hunter subsequently brought several claims to the Employment Tribunal, one of which was automatic unfair dismissal. 

The ET held that Ms Hunt was unfairly dismissed, as Carnival did not meet its obligations under Regulation 10 of the Maternity and Paternity Leave Regulations 1999 (MAPLE 1999). Under Regulation 10, an employee who is pregnant, on maternity leave, or who, since April 2024, has recently returned from maternity leave, is entitled to be offered alternative employment. If this obligation is not met, the employee will have a claim for automatic unfair dismissal. However, this prerogative only applies when a suitable alternative vacancy is available.

The ET held that Carnival could have offered one of the remaining 16 vacancies, as they constituted suitable alternatives within the meaning of Regulation 10. 

Carnival subsequently appealed this decision to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. 

The EAT quashed the findings of ‘automatic’ and ‘ordinary’ unfair dismissal. The EAT first held that the ET had erred in determining what constitutes a suitable alternative role. The EAT clarified that “there was a reduction of the total number of individuals holding the same roles and not one where there was an amalgamation of roles resulting in any newly created position(s).” As a result, there were no suitable alternative vacancies that could have been offered to Ms Hunter. Previous case law indicates that vacancies which already exist cannot be considered as suitable alternative vacancies.

Secondly, the EAT highlighted that Regulation 10 is only triggered when an employee is made redundant and is not at risk of redundancy. The EAT emphasised that “Regulation 10 does not override a valid selection process,” meaning that a woman eligible for protection under Regulation 10, but who scored lower than others, cannot displace someone who would otherwise have retained their job due to having scored higher in the selection process following a reduction in roles. 

The case was remitted to the Employment Tribunal for rehearing.

This ruling helps clarify the balance between redundancy selection and statutory family leave rights, ensuring businesses can manage redundancies without unintentionally breaching employment laws.