A costs clerk who returned from maternity leave to find she had been demoted to secretary won a claim for discrimination against Birmingham law firm Tyndallwoods earlier this month.

Tina Harrison was awarded 11,100 in compensation after the tribunal unanimously upheld her claims of sexual discrimination, victimisation and unfair dismissal.

Ms Harrison joined the firm as a legal secretary but was later promoted to a role in the costings team.

The court heard how the position was changed back to secretary - although on the same salary - when she returned to work after a few weeks' maternity leave.

She had requested that she would not have to work with a particular line manager on her return, but was transferred out of the costings team altogether.

This led her to consider a tribunal claim.

The tribunal criticised partner Mark Phillips's conduct in demanding to search Ms Harrison's bag when she was accused by another employee of stealing records for use in her case.

She refused and was asked to leave the premises.

Ms Harrison had no history of disciplinary proceedings against her and the records in question would have been of no assistance, the tribunal found.

The tribunal said Mr Phillips also acted 'irrationally' in deterring Ms Harrison from having a colleague act as a witness in a meeting, by describing it as an 'informal chat'.

He then used the meeting to dismiss her, without providing any realistic explanation, the judgment said.

It said he can only have acted in this way because of the 'highly charged atmosphere' caused by the knowledge that Ms Harrison may bring a tribunal claim.

Her solicitor, Kevin Conroy, principal at KJ Conroy & Co, said: 'I am surprised that Tyndallwoods did not settle this case.

Solicitors are supposed to be able to advise people in these situations - you don't expect this behaviour to be going on in law firms themselves.'

Tyndallwoods' senior partner Mike Dyer said: 'Difficult management issues are presented to us.

Ms Harrison sought to change her line management arrangements whilst she was on maternity leave.

That issue affected the area of Legal Services Commission audit where we require close supervision of our costing staff.

'The particular incident which gave rise to her dismissal caused concern to us about misuse of documents and client confidentiality.

'We accept, with the wisdom of hindsight we could have managed better.

We do not think that the tribunal fully appreciated the problems which we had to practically resolve in the context of consideration for other staff and clients.

Nevertheless we have learned lessons, improved our procedures and do not intend to appeal.'

Mr Phillips declined to make any additional comment.

Rachel Rothwell