ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00004877

Complaint(s):

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977	CA-00006952-001	05/09/2016

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 28/02/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Tierney

Location of Hearing: Room G.04 Lansdowne House

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 [and/or Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 and/or Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, and/or Section 9 of the Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency) Acts, 1984 - 2012, and/or Part VII of the Pensions Acts 1990 - 2015 and/or Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015, and/or Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000, and/or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969] following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).

Background:

The Claimant is claiming unfair dismissal under section 6 (f) of the Unfair Dismissals Act.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Claimant was employed by the Respondent on a fixed term contract from 8 April 2016 until 7 July 2016. The Respondent did not renew the contract. The 2003 Act requires the Respondent to inform an employee in writing if they intend to extend the fixed term contract. This did not occur as there was no intention to extend it. Furthermore ,the Respondent does not accept that the Claimant’s subjective interpretation of the parties relationship supersedes this obligation.

The Claimant is pursuing her claim under s 2(1)(a) & 6 (2(9F) of the Unfair Dismissals Act claiming her dismissal resulted wholly or mainly from her pregnancy. This requires her to establish that the dismissal was wholly or mainly as a result of the pregnancy. It is a higher burden compared to ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ which in the normal requirement in a standard dismissal case.

The Respondent stated the following reasons to support their case that the termination was due to the ceasing of the terms of the contract ;

The contract was in writing and signed by both parties
The Claimant knew that she was being employed for a particular period
The Respondent had genuine need for a fixed term contact as another employee whom the Claimant replaced was undergoing a three month placement at another one of the Respondent’s concessions.
The contract was terminated on 8 July 2016 in accordance with the terms of the contract.
The contract clearly provides that the Unfair Dismissals Act will not apply to a termination consisting only with the expiry of its terms.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Claimant commenced employment on 8 April on a fixed term contract. The appointment for three months. The employment was subject to an initial six month probationary period during which time performance and suitability for continued employment is monitored. The Claimant spent the duration of her employment working as an assistant manager to the concession manager.

She performed well and received the highest sales figures. She was sent on a development training course.

On 1 July she informed her manager of her pregnancy, who advised her that they needed to consult with the area manager. In the meantime the Claimant received her rota for July/August. On 5 July she was informed by her manager that she was being let go immediately without a moment’s notice.

She is claiming that she was let because of her pregnancy.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Section 2 & 6 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.

I have considered the submissions of both parties. It is beyond doubt that the Claimant was on a fixed term contract. This was the basis of her employment with the Respondent. Although the claimant was a very successful employee and at times covered for her manager on occasions, this did not alter the terms of her contract. There was no other onus on the Respondent but to fulfil terms of this contract which they did.

The terms of her contact stated ;

Your employment will terminate automatically when the fixed term of your employment terminates on 8 July 2016 …..

I therefore do not accept that her employment was terminated ‘wholly or mainly’ due to her pregnancy. The claim fails.

Dated: 09/06/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Tierney

Key Words: