BSkyB faces a paying out £200,000 to two women journalists after winning their unfair dismissal and sex discrimination claims.

The employment tribunal ruled that Natalie Stone, 34 and Victoria Waterson, 31, were dismissed from their jobs because they were mothers with young children.

Ms Stone and Ms Waterson were overlooked for a new position of video producer, which was given to the then senior Sky executive Mike Taylor’s personal assistant, Dee Lakhan. Taylor, head of networked media at Sky Movies, had a “mindset adverse to pregnancy and maternity leave”, the tribunal held.

Stone and Waterson are now seeking compensation for loss of earnings and injury to feelings. The pair, who both earned about £20,000, can claim up to £65,300 each for unfair dismissal, however damages for sex discrimination is open ended.

Andrew Rimmer was fired by Lymington and Pennington Town Council last October after several periods of sick leave following a heart attack.

But a tribunal ruled that the dismissal was unfair and ordered the authority to stump up for his past and future lost earnings.

Earlier, the tribunal was told how Mr Rimmer had been suffering from depression and anxiety that was so severe he could not even face opening letters from his bosses to discuss his absenteeism.

The tribunal had heard that his medication had left Mr Rimmer with a stammer and he could not face speaking on the phone.

He claimed that no-one attempted to contact him during his periods of illness and eventually he was dismissed following the formation of a sub-committee at the council.

Council chiefs claimed that services had started to suffer in his absence, including employees being overpaid and the council’s annual budget not being prepared.

In total the council was told it would have to pay £79,878, which included £14,978 in pay he had lost out on since being dismissed and £55,636 to compensate for future loss of earnings.

A City lawyer who was bullied and discriminated against because her boss “prefers the company of men and prefers working with them” is seeking a record £19m in damages from her former employers.

Gill Switalski, 51, left her £140,000-a-year job as head of the legal team at F & C Assets Management in September 2007 after her manager Marrack Tonkin criticised her for choosing a flexible working pattern, an employment appeal tribunal in London heard yesterday. This was so that she could balance her job with the care of her sons, one of who has cerebral palsy and the other Asperger’s syndrome, the tribunal was told.

“She had flexibility in place, but then Tonkin took over and things started to change,” said Suzanne McKie, representing Switalski. “The time she had off was in part a consequence of the difficulties with her sons … No one suggests she was not a capable lawyer and all her appraisals were fantastic.”

The tribunal heard that Switalski received an email from the company when her mother died, demanding a death certificate so that the cost of a cancelled business flight could be claimed on insurance. When she complained, “Mr Tonkin was dismissive about it”, said McKie. Switalski had not been allowed to join the all-male management committee despite her senior level. When she complained, she was told “to put up or shut up”.

It was also alleged that Tonkin took male members of staff out for lunch several times but only shared a plate of sandwiches with Switalski while he carried out her career review. “This is an individual who prefers the company of men and prefers working with them,” said McKie.

“She was a senior woman older than Mr Tonkin and he had a particular difficulty working with her in that position.”

The tribunal heard that Switalski went on sick leave after suffering a life threatening illness and undergoing two bouts of surgery. It was also told that she had not returned to work since last September and has to rely on her husband’s salary of less than £30,000. An employment tribunal has ruled Switalski was the victim of sex discrimination and harassment. F&C Assets challenged the decision, and the employment appeal tribunal yesterday reserved its judgment.

The previous compensation record for a sex discrimination case is thought to be the £6.5m won by the bond trader Allison Schieffelin from Morgan Stanley in 2004.

Simon Bellwood, who is claiming unfair dismissal from his job at the Greenfields secure unit on the island, told an employment tribunal yesterday how his relationship with his line manager Joe Kennedy “deteriorated”.

Giving evidence yesterday, Bellwood said he found Kennedy “overpowering” and claimed he had not been given the supervision he requested.

The social worker, who was previously manager of a local authority secure children’s home in Essex, told the tribunal he “felt like an elastic band being pulled in every direction”.

Bellwood began work as centre manager of Greenfields in August 2006, after which he criticised a system of putting children in solitary confinement, known as grand prix.

He also put in a formal complaint against Kennedy, but neither complaint was upheld. Bellwood was dismissed in May last year on the grounds of incapability.

The social worker told the tribunal that he was working “in excess of a 70-hour week” and felt “absolutely exhausted” in the job at Greenfields.

“I was in a position of feeling constantly criticised for anything and everything – on the one hand I was being told to develop policies, and on the other to be on the shop floor with young people,” he said.

Bellwood changed the grand prix system but said Kennedy “failed to understand” his behaviour management policy.

Bellwood said the system of solitary confinement put in place at Greenfields by Kennedy was “unlawful” and conflicted with his training.

He told the tribunal on Monday that he had introduced another policy that was about “recognising and rewarding positive behaviour”.

Bellwood yesterday disputed Kennedy’s criticism of him as “argumentative and disrespectful.”

He admitted he had “challenged” Kennedy but said he had been “at a loss how to remedy the situation”.

Bellwood alleged Kennedy had compiled a list of evidence against him to “to use to my detriment and to his advantage”.

Over the next fortnight, the Jersey employment tribunal will hear evidence from witnesses and Bellwood’s former employer the States of Jersey.

Mike Pollard, chief executive of health and social services for the States of Jersey, told the tribunal he wanted to “make sure the truth is known”.

The tribunal continues.

Bushra Noah, 19, is suing London-based hairdresser Sarah Desrosiers for religious discrimination in a case estimated to be worth at least £15,000.

Desrosiers has rejected the allegation and says she turned down Noah’s job application because it was an “absolutely basic” requirement that customers could see their stylist’s hair.

“The essence of my line of work is the display of hair,”claims Desrosiers.

“To me, it’s absolutely basic that people should be able to see the stylist’s hair.

“It has nothing to do with religion.

“It is just unfortunate that for her covering her hair symbolises religion.”

Desrosiers said she had never discriminated against Muslims and felt she had been victimised.

“My accountant is Muslim,” she said.

“This girl is suing me for more than I earn in a year.

“I am a small business and have only had my salon a year and a half.”

Noah is an experienced stylist but has been rejected for 25 jobs.

She was invited to work in Desrosiers salon in London for a trial day in March after sending in her resume.

But Noah alleges that when she turned up wearing a headscarf she was discriminated against and treated rudely.

“When I got there, she looked at me in shock,” Noah told the newspaper.

“She started making excuses about wanting someone who lived locally but I knew it was the headscarf.

“She asked if I wore it all the time and I said: ‘Yes’. She asked if I would take it off for work and I said: ‘No’.”

The case is due to be heard by an employment tribunal in January.

Mark Morrison, 36, of Haddington, took time off from tile shop Tile It All (UK) Ltd when he learned his brother was dying last December, an Edinburgh employment tribunal heard.

He called the store to say he would not be at work for two days as his brother’s condition had worsened.

When his brother died on 29 December, he sent a text message to his boss, Robert Selley, the firm’s area manager for Scotland, to advise him. He then sent another text to say he would be off sick until after the funeral.

Mr Morrison told the hearing Mr Selley then phoned and told him to bring a doctor’s certificate in to the shop when he returned. Mr Selley denied this.

Mr Morrison returned to work on 11 January and said that no comment was made when he handed in his sick-line.

But, the hearing learned, he could not cope with his grief and failed to attend work on 15 January.

Instead, he sent text messages to Carol Muir, manager of the shop in Edinburgh’s Seafield, on five consecutive days saying he was depressed and could not come to work. He also said he had been signed off work for two weeks by his doctor with depression.

But before he returned to the store, Mr Morrison received a letter summoning him to a disciplinary hearing for failure to follow company procedures for reporting sickness or absence.

At that disciplinary hearing, he produced his sick-line and denied he knew of any company policy insisting on phonecalls rather than text messages to report absences. He argued that a text had been acceptable when his brother had died and he pointed out he was told to bring in the certificate once he returned to work.

He further noted that he had spoken to Mr Selley about an unrelated matter during his absence and had not been made aware of any problem over the sick-line.

He was subsequently dismissed for failing to follow the company’s policy.

But yesterday the employment tribunal concluded his dismissal was unfair. A ruling issued by the tribunal noted he had not been disciplined or warned informally when he returned to work after his bereavement.

Susan O’Brien, the tribunal chairwoman, said the company’s complaint was petty, and the tribunal did not accept the claimant had been told he must not notify absences via text.

She said that throughout these events, Ms Muir, the local manager and Mr Selley were aware of the reason for the Mr Muir’s absence.

She continued: “The members of the tribunal were astonished that a local manager with only four or five employees to cover could not have phoned and asked for the GP certificate to meet any formal requirements.

“The description of this as deliberate ‘conduct’, meriting dismissal, in the unchallenged context of the claimant’s grief and distress is ridiculous. A modicum of common sense could have straightened all this out.”

Mr Morrison was awarded £6,977 in compensation.

Mother-of-three Sarah Primmer claimed sexual harassment and unfair dismissal against a Turkishrun kebab shop and café where she worked.

The 41-year-old, of Plymouth, told an employment tribunal: ‘I was regularly sexually harassed by my employers.

‘They would make lewd and embarrassing comments about me and ask me intimate questions about my personal life.

‘These included asking questions about the colour of my pubic hair, the size of my breasts and the size of my boyfriend’s penis, all of which I found insulting and demeaning.’

The divorcee, who now has blonde highlights, said she was ‘staggered’ by the size of the award against the Rendezvous Café, where she was employed from November 2004 until October last year.

“The court dismisses the Commission’s action against the ‘reasonably practicable’ qualification contained in the United Kingdom legislation on health and safety of workers,” the Luxembourg-based European Court of Justice said in a statement.

The ruling will come as a welcome relief to British businesses and the government.

The Commission had accused Britain of allowing an employer to escape responsibility if it could prove that measures to ensure safety of workers were grossly disproportionate in terms of money, time or trouble when balanced against the relevant risk.

“The Court concludes that the Commission has not established in what way the disputed clause, considered in the light of the national case law cited, infringes the provisions of the (EU) directive,” the court said.

Sting could pay out record damages for unfairly dismissing his chef.

The singer – real name Gordon Sumner – and his wife Trudie Styler were judged to have broken employment laws by sacking Jane Martin, 41, last April.

In a unanimous verdict, it was ruled Martin was unfairly dismissed on the grounds of her pregnancy and was the victim of sexual discrimination.

Martin’s compensation payout will be decided at a hearing on 8 June. There is no limit on the amount awarded in sexual discrimination cases meaning Sting could be forced to pay record damages for a case involving a domestic servant.

Martin, who worked for the couple for eight years, said she was made to work 14-hour days despite being heavily pregnant.

Once, while seven months pregnant, she claimed she took a train and taxi from Salisbury to London to make soup and a salad for Styler.

She revealed she was also asked to travel to London on several occasions to cook a bowl of pasta for the couple’s youngest child – even though there were two nannies, a butler and two housekeepers in the London household

When Martin fell ill during her pregnancy and took time off work, Styler is alleged to have fumed: “Who the f**k does she think she is? She’s my chef in the UK. She needs to be available if I need her, or she should rethink her position.”

Martin was made redundant after being deemed to be worse than another chef when the pair were assessed on ability, length of service and attendance.

The tribunal described the “scoring” system as a
“sham” saying it was designed to ensure Martin couldn’t win.

The Tribunal was told that when a trailer was driven into the depot Elmes suggested that Taylor could drive the vehicle on his lap, or on the lap of another woman. After Elmes was accused of sending Taylor the magazine and thong he was suspended and eventually dismissed. He denied any involvement. Tribunal chairman Robert Powell said there was some concern about the way the firm had investigated the accusations, but overall the employer had acted within the bounds of reasonable responses. As a result he rejected Elmes’ compensation claim for unfair dismissal. However, he also rejected a claim for costs against Elmes by the firm, which has since sold its contracts business and is now known as Ceva Logistics.