Job hunting is often a challenging and time-consuming endeavour, with many obstacles to overcome. But the latest revelation about 'ghost jobs' in the United Kingdom has added a new layer of complexity to this already arduous process.

According to a comprehensive study conducted by StandOut CV - a prominent career and CV expert firm - a staggering 34.4 percent of job advertisements listed online have been identified as 'ghost jobs,' a deceptive practice that leaves job seekers disheartened and frustrated.

Ghost jobs are a disingenuous recruitment practice in which companies create fake job openings for their own benefit. These openings may either never have existed or have already been filled, but the companies leave them posted on job boards to build a pool of candidates for future hiring or to create the illusion of company growth. Unfortunately, this practice means that job seekers often waste valuable time and effort applying for jobs that don't lead to real interviews.

StandOut CV's analysis - led by Director Andrew Fennell - scrutinised a substantial 91,318 job listings across the 30 largest cities, towns and boroughs in the UK. The research focused on the number of jobs posted and those that remained 'live' but had been advertised for '30+ days,' indicating a high probability of being a ghost job. The data, gathered on 19th May 2023, and re-evaluated on 27th June 2023, revealed that over a third of job listings in the UK fell under the 'ghost job' category, highlighting a persistent issue within the job market.

The study also unveiled geographic variations in the prevalence of ghost jobs. The London borough of Islington emerged as the worst area for ghost jobs, with a staggering 26.1 percent of job listings found to be fraudulent. Southend-On-Sea followed closely behind with 23.7 percent of job listings being ghost jobs.

Interestingly, larger cities had a much lower ghost job rate, with London, Edinburgh, and Bristol having some of the lowest percentages of ghost jobs, likely due to a busier job market where jobs are filled faster and better recruiter administration in removing filled job listings.

Certain professions are also more susceptible to encountering ghost job listings than others. Veterinary nurses topped the list as the most likely victims of this deceptive practice, with a startling 59.1 percent of job listings in this sector found to be ghost jobs. Software engineers followed closely behind, with 46.5 percent of job listings in their field identified as fake.

But what drives this concerning trend? Unfortunately, there is no law against ghost job adverts in the UK, but it would not reflect well on a company if they were found to be using them. A 2022 survey found that 50 percent of managers admitted to using ghost job ads to attract more candidates for future job openings, while 43 percent used them to create the illusion of company growth when it wasn't the case. While this practice may benefit recruiters in the short term, it leaves job seekers frustrated and their time and effort wasted on non-existent job opportunities.

New research has uncovered a concerning reality – money worries are taking a significant toll on full-time workers, affecting both their professional lives and personal well-being. According to a study conducted by The Reward & Employee Benefits Association (REBA) in association with WEALTH at work, the financial concerns of employees are having a detrimental impact.

The study revealed that a substantial percentage of full-time employees are grappling with the adverse consequences of money worries. About 23% of respondents admitted to struggling to concentrate at work due to financial concerns, while 15% reported a decrease in their overall productivity. Perhaps even more concerning is the fact that 16% of respondents incurred debts for the first time in their professional lives this year, excluding mortgage debt.

These financial worries extend beyond the workplace and have a ripple effect on home life. A significant portion of employees admitted to losing sleep (28%), feeling embarrassed (26%), arguing with family and friends (18%), and even breaking down in tears (18%) due to financial concerns. These findings underscore the need for immediate attention to the financial well-being of employees, both at work and in their personal lives.

The research from REBA and WEALTH at work highlights a growing recognition among employers of the importance of addressing poor financial literacy as a key financial wellbeing risk. In 2023, 63% of employers acknowledge this, compared to 58% in 2022.

Furthermore, the survey emphasises that employers anticipate ongoing financial pressures, including high childcare costs (64%), rental costs (66%), high consumer inflation (75%), and energy prices (77%), all of which pose a risk to the financial well-being of their staff. However, it is worth noting that energy costs and consumer inflation are slightly less concerning than in the previous year.

While the research paints a stark picture of the financial struggles faced by employees, there is a glimmer of hope in the form of evolving employer responses. Employers are increasingly aware of the need to support their employees' financial well-being. In fact, 53% of employers intend to increase their financial wellbeing spending in the next year, and 44% plan to focus on addressing financial distress in the workplace over the next two years.

One noteworthy aspect is the growth in the number of employers offering independent financial education, guidance and advice. This support is set to almost double, indicating a shift toward more comprehensive assistance for employees. These initiatives are driven by the understanding that financial well-being is integral to improving broader employee well-being and achieving HR objectives like recruitment and retention.

The study also highlights the increasing importance of an aging workforce in shaping financial wellbeing strategies. Approximately 29% of employers expect an aging workforce to drive their financial wellbeing strategy over the next two years. Additionally, 44% of employers plan to provide targeted support for employees over the age of 55, particularly in terms of pre-retirement planning.

The research suggests growing support for savings products among employers, with a focus on pay-as-you-earn saving schemes, employee share plans, tax-free saving wrappers, and long-term incentive plans. Wage advance schemes are also becoming more popular, with 37% of employers planning to offer them in the near future. The number of employers offering financial education, guidance and advice is set to see a substantial increase, indicating a commitment to enhancing employees' financial literacy.

The research by REBA and WEALTH at work underscores the pressing need for employers to address the financial well-being of their workforce as money worries are not only impact employees' productivity but can also cause emotional and personal distress. Therefore employers should recognise the link between financial well-being and overall employee well-being and take strategic steps to support their staff.

New research by Prospects at Jisc - based on responses from 2,000 graduates - has shed light on the challenges faced by recent graduates in the UK job market. The survey, conducted between 7th February and 9th March 2023, inquired about their preparedness for work and whether they perceived any disadvantages during job applications.

The findings reveal that a significant number of graduates, particularly those from ethnic minority backgrounds, women and those with non-university-educated parents, feel that factors such as their ethnicity, gender, or social class have hindered their job prospects.

The research exposed substantial disparities in the way graduates from different ethnic backgrounds perceive their opportunities in the job market. Notably, 43% of ethnic minority graduates felt they were disadvantaged in the job application process, compared to just 8% of white graduates. African, Caribbean, or Black British respondents (51%) and Asian or Asian British respondents (49%) were most likely to express this sentiment. The data underscores that ethnicity plays a significant role in shaping a graduate's perception of their employment prospects.

The research also highlighted gender disparities in the job market. Female graduates were more than twice as likely (10%) than their male counterparts (4%) to report feeling disadvantaged due to their gender during the job application process. Additionally, female graduates expressed greater unpreparedness for work (32%) compared to male graduates (25%). These findings emphasise that gender biases continue to persist, impacting women's confidence and opportunities in the job market.

Furthermore, the study revealed that social class remains a substantial barrier to success in the job market. A fifth of graduates believed they were set back in their job applications due to their social class. Respondents whose parents didn't attend university were more likely to express this feeling (24%) than those with university-educated parents (15%). The data underscores that social class backgrounds continue to influence employment opportunities and perceptions.

The research also addressed the experiences of graduates with disabilities, health conditions and neurodivergent conditions. While 13% of respondents with disabilities or health conditions and 14% of neurodivergent individuals felt disadvantaged during job applications, fewer reports surfaced regarding hindrances based on sexual orientation (5%). Moreover, respondents with disabilities (42%) and neurodivergent graduates (36%) were more likely to feel unprepared for work compared to their counterparts without these conditions. These findings underscore the importance of creating an inclusive and supportive environment for individuals with disabilities and neurodiverse conditions in the job market.

Chris Rea, a graduate careers expert at Prospects for Jisc, summarised the implications of this research:

"It's clear that many graduates feel the jobs market is stacked against them, and this could negatively affect their motivation to apply for jobs as well as the type of roles they go for. While students may not think the job application process is fair, that doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t. Employers need to hire more diverse candidates, and many are aware the impact the hiring process can have. These findings show how important it is to review application processes to ensure that they are transparent and accessible to all.”

A new report from GoodShape - the enterprise health management platform - has shed light on the significant impact of long-term illness on the UK workforce.

Between July 2022 and August 2023, long-term illness cost UK employers a staggering £21 billion, resulting in the loss of 147 million working days. This equates to every employee in the UK losing an average of 4.5 working days per year. The repercussions of long-term illness are a significant contributor to the UK's workforce productivity problem, accounting for over half of the £41.8 billion lost over the past twelve months.

GoodShape defines long-term sickness as an absence lasting 20 working days or more. Alarming trends have emerged in the last year, with the average length of time off increasing from 59 to 62 days. While long-term sickness accounts for only 5% of total absence cases, its impact is disproportionately significant, amounting to over 50% of all working time lost due to ill health.

The top reasons for long-term absences are:

Mental Health: Mental health-related absences accounted for a staggering 48 million lost working days, costing employers an estimated £6.9 billion.

Musculoskeletal Issues: Musculoskeletal -related absences resulted in 29.9 million lost working days, with an estimated cost of £4.3 billion.

Surgery: Absences due to surgery totalled 15.1 million lost working days, with an estimated cost of £2.1 billion.

As mental health conditions alone cost UK companies an enormous £6.9 billion in working days lost to long-term illness in the year to August, this nearly equals the combined cost of all long-term absences due to musculoskeletal problems, surgery, and cancer, which amounted to £7.6 billion.

When comparing the data for July 2022 - August 2023 with the previous 12 months, some sectors have witnessed alarming increases in the duration of long-term sickness:

Retail: The average duration of long-term absence in retail is 64.8 days, reflecting a 21% year-on-year increase.

Professional Services: In the professional services sector - which includes consulting and accounting - the average duration of long-term sickness is 68.6 days, marking a 17% year-on-year increase.

Government: The government sector reports an average duration of long-term sickness at 65 days, with a 7% year-on-year increase.

Healthcare: Healthcare also saw an increase, with an average duration of long-term sickness at 58.5 days, marking a 3% year-on-year increase.

Organisations are keenly aware of the issue, investing £1.5 billion annually in health and wellbeing services such as occupational health, mental health and musculoskeletal health. Additionally, nearly £7 billion is spent on medical and protection insurance. Despite these investments, the economic toll of long-term sickness remains substantial and has become a significant economic challenge, costing UK employers billions, contributing to job shortages, rising inflation and increased benefit claims.

In response to the escalating issue the government has initiated measures aimed at encouraging individuals back into the workforce and reducing the burden on the welfare system. Changes to sick notes issued by doctors and consultations into occupational health are part of these efforts.

A new report entitled, "Shaping our Economy," reveals that socio-economic background plays a more significant role in determining one's trajectory in the financial services sector than gender or ethnicity.

Commissioned by the membership body Progress Together, this report is the largest study ever conducted on socio-economic diversity and progression within UK financial services. It builds upon previous research that highlighted the stark pay gap within the industry and the lack of socio-economic diversity across the workforce.

"Socio-economic background" encompasses the unique social and economic circumstances in which an individual grew up. This can be objectively measured by considering factors such as the type of school attended, eligibility for free school meals and parents' occupation and educational level.

Progress Together, formed in 2022 as a result of a government-commissioned taskforce, is dedicated to supporting its member firms in tracking and improving socio-economic diversity at senior levels in the financial services sector. With over 30 member firms representing a significant portion of the UK's financial workforce, Progress Together is making strides in addressing this crucial issue.

Financial services are a cornerstone of our society, employing over 1.1 million people in the UK, with the majority working in banking and insurance. In the most recent year, the sector contributed £275 billion to gross value added (GVA), underscoring its vital role in the economy.

The report - based on data from 25 Progress Together member firms and encompassing 149,111 employees - highlights several concerning trends:

Lack of Representation: On average, member firms are unrepresentative by socio-economic background compared to the broader UK workforce. Approximately 50% of employees in these firms come from a higher socio-economic background, compared to 37% in the UK workforce.

Disproportionate Senior Representation: Individuals from higher socio-economic backgrounds are more than twice as likely to hold senior roles within these firms. This lack of diversity extends to the progression rate, with those from higher socio-economic backgrounds advancing more quickly.

Gender and Socio-Economic Background: Gender disparities compound the issue. Women from lower socio-economic backgrounds take 21% longer to progress to senior roles, compared to their counterparts from higher socio-economic backgrounds.

The report identifies three primary factors contributing to the lack of socio-economic diversity in senior roles:

The Pipeline: A lack of diversity at junior and middle-management levels limits the pool of candidates eligible for senior positions.

Unequal Progression Rates: Individuals from higher socio-economic backgrounds advance more rapidly, creating an uneven playing field.

Experienced Hiring: The recruitment of experienced professionals often perpetuates the existing lack of diversity rather than improving it.

The report offers several key recommendations to address these disparities and promote socio-economic diversity within financial services:

Data Collection: All financial services firms should collect socio-economic background data from their permanent workforce and regulators should advocate for this practice.

Data Utilization: Firms must use collected data to drive meaningful change in their diversity and inclusion initiatives.

Focus on Experienced Hiring: Greater attention should be paid to diversifying experienced hires to break the cycle of homogeneity.

Impact Evaluations: Firms should establish robust impact evaluations to identify and implement practices that have the most positive effect on socio-economic diversity and inclusion.

The "Shaping our Economy" report sheds light on the pervasive issue of socio-economic background shaping one's journey within the financial services sector. This report is a crucial step towards a more inclusive and equitable industry. By heeding the recommendations outlined in the report and taking concrete actions, financial services firms can work towards a future where success is determined by merit and not by one's upbringing.

The Nationwide Building Society has been directed by an employment tribunal to pay over £350,000 in compensation to a former employee, Jayne Follows. Ms. Follows was made redundant after refusing Nationwide's return-to-office (RTO) mandate, citing her caregiving responsibilities and existing working conditions.

This legal dispute, spanning five years, has finally concluded with the tribunal's decision, which found Nationwide guilty of indirect disability discrimination and unfair dismissal.

Jayne Follows, described as a "top performer" in her role at Nationwide, faced redundancy in 2017 after she declined to give up her existing working conditions. Nationwide had previously allowed certain employees to work from home, including Ms. Follows, who needed this flexibility to care for her elderly and disabled mother. Despite her excellent performance and the recognition of her caregiving responsibilities, Nationwide decided to eliminate home-working contracts, arguing that junior staff required more physical supervision from their managers.

Ms. Follows’ refusal to relinquish her home-working arrangement led to her being designated as at risk of redundancy. She subsequently lodged a formal complaint, asserting that Nationwide was attempting to change her terms and conditions by relocating her to an unsuitable office location. When asked for a counter-proposal, she insisted on continuing her existing home-working arrangement, stating:

My counter-proposal is [for me] to continue on my existing home-working arrangement and this is never going to be supported [by you] based on unsupported and non-existent 'business needs'.”

In January 2018, Jayne Follows was made redundant with immediate effect. This action prompted her to file a legal case against Nationwide, alleging sex and disability discrimination, as well as unfair dismissal.

The employment tribunal - chaired by Employment Judge Mark Emery - ruled in favour of Ms. Follows, upholding her claims of disability discrimination and unfair dismissal. The tribunal found Nationwide's decision to eliminate home-working posts to lack a factual basis in evidence. It was determined that the decision was rooted in subjective impressions rather than a comprehensive analysis of business needs or consideration of alternative approaches.

The tribunal emphasized that Nationwide had made up its mind about eliminating home-working posts without assessing the actual business need for on-site Senior Lending Managers (SLMs). Additionally, they failed to consider alternative approaches that would accommodate employees' individual circumstances while meeting the company's objectives.

Following the tribunal's decision, Jayne Follows was awarded £345,708 in compensation. This substantial sum reflects the financial impact and emotional distress caused by her unfair dismissal and the discrimination she faced.

Preparing for a wedding is a time-consuming and often expensive endeavour. For many couples, the process of planning a wedding can be as demanding as it is joyous. The commitment to create a memorable celebration often requires significant time and resources, which can leave little room for other important aspects of life, such as work and personal time off. In the UK, where annual leave is highly valued, there has been growing discussion about the concept of "marriage leave," a unique employee benefit that allows couples to take time off from work to celebrate their weddings and honeymoons without using their precious annual leave allowance.

A bride, for instance, may find herself using up most, if not all, of her annual leave for various wedding-related activities, including dress fittings, the hen party, the wedding day itself and the honeymoon. This can be a delicate balancing act for couples, one that requires them to juggle their work commitments and personal lives seamlessly.

In contrast, some European countries have already embraced the idea of marriage leave. For example, Spanish workers are entitled to 15 paid calendar days off for their wedding, while in France, couples receive four days off for their own weddings and an additional day when their children get married. Malta also grants time off to employees for their weddings.

However, the UK has been somewhat slow in adopting this concept, with most employees relying solely on their annual leave allowance to accommodate their wedding and honeymoon plans. Currently, only 5% of UK employers offer marriage leave as a work perk, according to research from the wedding app Hitched.

Kate Palmer - Director at HR consultancy Peninsula - points out that the UK lacks any statutory laws regarding marriage leave. This is in contrast to countries like Spain and China, where there is a minimum allowance of three days off for weddings. Palmer suggests that this may be because UK employees already enjoy relatively generous statutory annual leave compared to their European counterparts.

She stated:

“Many UK employers will choose to provide staff with a contractual annual leave entitlement over and above the 5.6-week statutory holiday allowance. In addition to annual leave there are also family friendly leave entitlements in place, such as Maternity, Paternity and Shared Parental leave. 

“Neonatal Care Leave and Carer’s Leave will also take effect at some point in 2024. It could be argued that having additional time off specifically to get married or go on honeymoon is not needed on top of existing leave entitlements.”

Despite the lack of a legal mandate, a significant portion of UK workers believes that marriage leave should be introduced. According to the Hitched survey, 67% of respondents supported the idea of marriage leave. This indicates that there is a desire for more flexibility in how employees can use their time off, especially for life-changing events like weddings.

However, there are potential challenges to implementing marriage leave. Some argue that it may lead to discontent among employees who won't benefit from this additional leave. This could impact morale, retention rates and even a company's reputation.

To address this concern, some suggest alternative approaches, such as increasing flexibility around annual leave for all employees. This could involve allowing employees to take longer blocks of annual leave for significant life events, including weddings. Such flexibility could benefit all employees, not just those getting married.

Kate Palmer suggested:

“An employer may be better off looking at increasing their flexibility around the taking of annual leave for all employees where there is good reason to do so. For example, this might include allowing an employee to take 3 weeks annual leave in one block to get married, or to visit family abroad, when the usual cap is two weeks. That way, it is something that will potentially benefit all employees.”

Marriage leave is part of a larger conversation about work-life balance and the importance of employee well-being. While marriage leave specifically benefits couples planning weddings, it highlights the broader need for flexibility in how employees use their annual leave entitlements.

A shift towards more inclusive leave policies, including unlimited leave options, showcases trust in employees and can contribute to a positive workplace culture. When employees feel valued and supported by their employers, it can lead to increased job satisfaction and, ultimately, benefit the company as a whole.

Rachel Weaven - HR Consultant at Face 2 Face HR - agrees. She said:

“I think the world is changing and I think the way in which companies operate is changing, and actually, offering marriage leave is just another way for employers to become more inclusive and create a culture that wants to celebrate their employees.

“When employees feel more valued, guess who benefits – the company!”

In a recent survey of 1,000 people in the UK, an intriguing trend has emerged - one that sheds light on how remote work and flexible schedules are reshaping our work-life balance. It appears that many individuals are taking advantage of their newfound freedom to clean their homes while working. A surprising 60 percent of respondents admitted to tidying up between work tasks, sparking conversations about the evolving boundaries between work and personal life.

This study - conducted by an independent research firm - has not only uncovered this emerging trend but has also provided valuable insights into the specific habits and behaviours of those who engage in this practice. Notably, the data highlights the prominence of Monday as the day when most cleaning enthusiasts get to work, with a staggering 81 percent of participants revealing that they embark on their cleaning routines at the start of the week.

What makes this phenomenon even more interesting is the distinction between individuals who primarily work in traditional office settings and those who work from home. Among the latter group, 48 percent confessed to sneaking in some cleaning chores during their lunch breaks. The ability to integrate basic cleaning tasks into their daily schedules is seen as a perk by some remote workers, allowing them to maintain a tidy home environment alongside their professional duties.

However, while this trend may appear harmless, it is not without potential consequences. Employment law experts, like Elissa Thursfield - a Consultant Solicitor in the employment law team at Richard Nelson LLP - emphasize the importance of caution in navigating this new landscape. Flexibility in terms of location, they remind us, does not necessarily equate to flexible working hours.

Thursfield pointed out that deviating from specified working hours to engage in personal tasks, such as cleaning, can potentially be viewed as serious misconduct and may lead to disciplinary actions. This underscores the need for clear boundaries and expectations for remote workers. Employers are encouraged to establish guidelines for remote work practices, especially if they intend to enforce consequences for deviations from these rules.

One of the major concerns raised by employers is the impact of these cleaning breaks on productivity. Some argue that breaking away from work can disrupt productivity, while others believe that short breaks can provide a mental reset and boost overall efficiency. Striking the right balance between work and personal responsibilities is crucial for both employees and employers.

It's essential for employees to review their employment contracts and engage in open discussions with their employers regarding expectations and boundaries. Likewise, employers must adopt a thoughtful approach when addressing concerns about productivity and potential disruptions. Hasty decisions to force employees back into office environments should be avoided and any changes to work arrangements should undergo a thorough review process.

In the United Kingdom, where the importance of financial planning for retirement has never been more pronounced, startling statistics have recently come to light. A report by wealth manager Netwealth has revealed that a staggering 88% of individuals with workplace pensions have at least one unclaimed pension, amounting to an average of £28,000 per person. These dormant pots represent a substantial lost opportunity, particularly in the face of rising inflation and increasing living costs.

For those who have diligently contributed to their pensions throughout their careers, allowing these assets to remain unclaimed can have dire consequences. One of the primary concerns is the risk of eroding the value of these savings over time, especially when they are with providers who charge exorbitant management fees. This issue is not just about forgotten paperwork; it's about the potential financial security of retirees being compromised.

The dynamics of the modern job market mean that individuals will change jobs several times during their professional journey. This leads to the accumulation of multiple pensions over a lifetime, with the responsibility of keeping track of them falling squarely on the shoulders of their owners. Managing multiple pension pots can be overwhelming, with a barrage of paperwork and administrative tasks to contend with. It's no surprise, then, that many people struggle to oversee all their pensions effectively.

Charlotte Ransom, CEO of Netwealth stated: 

“It is very common to have several pools of retirement assets during our lifetime, and it is often difficult to successfully and actively track all of them, especially if they are sitting with multiple providers over a long period of time. The high number of stranded assets is clearly concerning, obstructing consumers from having a holistic view across all of their wealth in aggregate in order to be able to plan forward with confidence and identify the funds needed for key milestones.”

Netwealth's research has provided valuable insights into the extent of the problem. Among workers who have lost track of a pension, a concerning 42% revealed that between two and five of their various pension pots are now stranded. The situation is even more pronounced among female respondents, with a staggering 50% of women who confirmed having unclaimed pensions admitting that they do not have sight of or access to up to five company pensions accrued throughout their careers.

The implications of these findings are profound. In a society where financial stability in retirement is a paramount concern, leaving pension funds unclaimed can lead to a substantial shortfall in one's retirement income. As individuals grapple with the realities of an uncertain economic landscape, taking action to recover these lost assets is becoming increasingly vital.

Charlotte Ransom emphasised the importance of addressing this issue promptly. She added:

"Now more than ever, it is vital that consumers track down any stranded pensions that they have worked hard to earn, and that they act to recover them sooner rather than later to regain control over these important pools of value. Savers need to be protecting and fully maximising the value of their retirement savings, ensuring their assets are working as hard as they could be when it comes to delivering financial returns.”

The problem of unclaimed workplace pensions is not one that can be ignored. It's a financial challenge that requires individuals to take a proactive approach in order to safeguard their retirement income. Whether through regular pension audits, consolidation of pension pots, or seeking professional financial advice, there are steps that can be taken to ensure that these valuable assets do not go to waste - the potential loss of £28,000 per person is too significant to ignore, particularly in a climate of economic uncertainty.

An office worker who took an extended 28-month maternity leave and refused to return to work, lost her unfair dismissal and discrimination lawsuit against her former employer. The case revolved around Jowita Parsons - an import coordinator at International Forest Products Limited - who spent a considerable period away from her job due to maternity leave and personal matters. While Parsons claimed unfair dismissal and discrimination on pregnancy and sex grounds, the employment tribunal ultimately ruled against her.

Jowita Parsons' extended absence from her job spanned two consecutive maternity leaves and additional time off for family-related issues. Her initial maternity leave started four weeks earlier than planned, shortly after she received a disciplinary warning for "aggressive and inappropriate behaviour" towards her line manager, Ben Wallace. This premature departure, coupled with her lack of clarity regarding her return date, caused disruption within the small company of just 21 staff members and significant stress to her colleagues.

Parsons had joined International Forest Products Limited as an import coordinator in March 2019. Within five months, her line manager - Ben Wallace - expressed concerns about her punctuality and work quality. Later that year, Wallace pointed out a mistake in her work via email, which led to a complaint from Parsons, who stated that their working relationship had "not got off to the best of starts." Subsequently, she received a disciplinary warning for her "aggressive and inappropriate behaviour" towards Wallace.

Following this disciplinary action, Parsons requested to commence her maternity leave four weeks ahead of schedule. As a result, Wallace had to arrange cover for her job at short notice, which resulted in poor business performance and additional stress for her colleagues.

In March 2020, two days after the UK went into lockdown, Parsons requested to extend her first maternity leave to 12 months. Although she was due to return to work in October of that year, she fell pregnant again and requested her second maternity leave to be attached to the first. With extensions due to family issues, she was not due to return to the office until the new year, having been on maternity leave for a total of two years, two months and two weeks.

When her line manager subsequently informed her of the need for additional training upon her return and requested a specific date, Parsons refused to provide one. Instead, she insisted that she would only return once her divorce proceedings and house sale had concluded, leaving her return open-ended.

In February 2022, her employment was terminated after she failed to return to work. Parsons attempted to sue the company for unfair dismissal, discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy and discrimination on the grounds of sex, but her claims were all dismissed by the tribunal.

Employment Judge Angela Shields stated that Parsons had been repeatedly asked to provide a reasonable timeframe for her return to work but was unable to do so. Shields emphasized that the reason for Parsons' dismissal was her refusal to return to work and the company could not keep her role open indefinitely. The Judge stated:

“The reason that the clamant was dismissed was because she refused to return to work and [the company] could no longer keep her role open indefinitely.”

She added:

“The tribunal was also satisfied that there were real pressures on [the firm] to fulfil the role of import coordinator and to have [Parsons] in her position and completing the work... there was a genuine disruption and overburdening of a small company whilst [she] was not in her role.”