A nurse is taking her own brother to an employment tribunal after he allegedly sacked her while she was pregnant - without explicitly telling her.
Anika Moughal claims that her sibling, Dr Mohammed Moughal, was 'objectively ambiguous' when informing her that she was being laid off. As a result, she says she didn't even know that he was pulling the plug on her employment at his GP surgery, Greenlaw Medical Practice, which has since been dissolved.
An employment tribunal in Glasgow, Scotland, heard that Dr Moughal did not use the words 'terminated, dismissed, fired, or anything similar' when trying to tell his sister she was being let go.
He is said to have instead tried to 'soften the blow' by being vague with his terminology, allegedly telling Anika to 'stop working' and 'to stop logging in'.
Advert
The court showdown between the siblings is currently unfolding, with the mum claiming that she was unfairly dismissed by her brother and his former GP practice.
Anika began working at Greenlaw in 2013 as a receptionist, before going on to become a healthcare support worker there the following year. She held this position until 2018 while studying to become a nurse, before she then took on the role of a practice nurse at the GP surgery in September 2020.
Dr Moughal was one of the partners running Greenlaw, which also boasted practices in Newton Mearns, East Renfrewshire, and Pollokshields.
In the summer of 2020, Anika took a break from work to get married to her husband before returning to Greenlaw as a nurse. The tribunal heard that she was mostly working remotely during this period, while also managing patients who suffer from chronic illnesses.
Advert
Anika would also attend the GP practice to carry out Covid-19 vaccination clinics or smear clinics on an ad hoc basis. In 2023, she then endured a 'complicated' pregnancy - and the practice manager, Sandra Grant, asked her to carry out fewer in-person clinics.
The decision was then made to sack Anika, the tribunal heard. The reasoning behind this has not yet been revealed.
The tribunal was told: "The partners agreed in writing that [Anika] should be 'off payroll from 1 May 2024', but what was communicated to [Anika]? The relevant conversation took place between [Anika] and [Dr Moughal] at the end of April 2024.
"[Dr Moughal] wished to soften the blow, not least because he knew that his sister was pregnant, and I find that he used ambiguous language. It was objectively ambiguous, and it also appeared ambiguous to [Anika].
"[Dr Moughal] advised [Anika] to stop working and to stop logging in. He did not used the words such as 'terminated', 'dismissed', 'fired' or anything similar. He communicated that her work should stop."
Advert
Greenlaw has since dissolved following a dispute between the partners.
"[Dr Moughal] said to [Anika] 'bear with me' in the context of an ongoing dispute between the partners," the tribunal further heard. "He accepted in cross-examination that he might not have communicated what he intended to, i.e. that the employment relationship was coming to an end.
"He accepted in cross-examination that [Anika] might have been left with the impression that the situation was not, or not yet, permanent. Importantly, there was no letter or email confirming the termination of [Anika]’s employment in writing. She did not, at that stage, know that the payments of salary would be permanently stopped after April 2024."
The mum was sacked on 31 July last year.
Advert
Employment Judge Mark Whitcombe said: "There was nothing about the context which made it sufficiently clear that the instruction not to log on or work was permanent, and that [Anika]’s contract was therefore at an end.
"The words used were equally consistent with a temporary crisis during a partnership dispute, a dispute which might be resolved. I do not think that a reasonable employee in [Anika]’s position would have understood [Dr Moughal]’s words to amount to the communication of a dismissal in all the circumstances."
Miss Moughal received a P45 by August of that year, by which point she believed she had been dismissed.
However, the judge said 'there was nothing which clearly and unambiguously communicated to [Anika] that the terms of her contract were changing on a permanent basis'.
The judge decided in a preliminary hearing that Miss Moughal was an employee, she was dismissed, and the employment tribunal had jurisdiction to hear her claims.
Advert
Anika's case will now be considered in full by an employment tribunal at a later date.
Olivia Burke