CORRECTION ORDER
ISSUED PURSUANT TO SECTION 41 OF THE WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 2015
This Order corrects the original Decision ADJ-00016913 issued on 16/8/2019 and should be read in conjunction with that Decision.
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00016913
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {A Childcare Worker} | {A Creche} |
Representatives |
| Aidan McGrath DAS Group |
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-00021958-002 | 19/09/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003 | CA-00021958-003 | 19/09/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003 | CA-00021958-004 | 19/09/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003 | CA-00021958-005 | 19/09/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003 | CA-00021958-006 | 19/09/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 30 and 31 of the Maternity Protection Act 1994 | CA-00021958-007 | 19/09/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/11/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Davnet O'Driscoll
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 andSection 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The Complainant is a childcare practitioner who was employed from 4th September 2017 part-time until 29th June 2018. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant interviewed for the position in August 2017. She was told she would be able to travel in September 2018. She was never informed it was a once off 38 week contract of employment before or during her employment. She was told by the owner her work is brilliant and she never had any issues whatsoever. She informed her employer she was pregnant on 18th January 2018. She was diagnosed with gestational diabetes early in her pregnancy and had to attend a clinic at 1.30pm each Monday. The Complainant noticed that her duties were being allocated to other staff (putting sleepers to sleep, school collections). When she asked she was told it was because of the snow and because of her diabetes they were worried about the Complainant walking. On 6th June 2017 the Complainant asked the owner if she needed a letter of confinement and was told no. When she asked about filling in the social welfare maternity leave form she was told this was not necessary. She spoke with the owner the following day as she was confused. The owners said she presumed with the Complainant’s 38 week contract that she would have to reapply the following year for a job. The Complainant telephoned the owner to ask if she could work for the summer and was told the Respondent did not need any assistance as there would be a lot of children on holidays. The Complainant saw a position being advertised in the creche on 7th, 10th, 14th and 20th June and 10 August 2018. The Complainant’s contract was not renewed and she was not given any reason for this. She was given the impression that she would be employed long-term as they discussed the future. She was never given the impression it was a once-off contract and she would not have left 2 other jobs for this role had she known this. She felt guilty for having to attend diabetic breakfast club on Friday mornings every 4 weeks, but was told it would not be safe if she attended in the afternoons, when she was not working. She tried to have her medical appointments outside working hours. The Complainant feels she was treated differently due to her pregnancy. The Complainant says that she has been treated less favourably as a fixed-term worker than a comparable permanent employee. The Respondent has failed to give her a written statement setting out the objective grounds justifying renewal of a fixed-term contract and failure to offer a contract of indefinite duration under the Protection of Employees (Fixed-term Work) Act 2003. The Respondent has failed to inform her of opportunities for permanent employment or appropriate training opportunities under the 2003 Act. The Respondent failed to provide to employee’s representatives information about fixed-term work Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003. In addition, the Complainant claims that she has not received her entitlement to maternity-leave under the Maternity Protection Act 1994.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent furnished written submissions on 11th October 2018 denying the claim of unfair dismissal. The Respondent furnished a fixed-term contract of employment from 4th September 2017 to 29th June 2018 for 38 weeks which was signed by the Complainant on 18th October 2017. This was issued after 1 month’s trial, for 38 weeks and it suited the Complainant. The contract states that the duties of each member of staff may change from time to time. The Respondent denies any wrongdoing as the contract just ceased. The Complainant accepted the verbal notice on 28th May 2018 and written notice on 13 June 2018. This was the first time they had appointed someone for a 38 week period for the ECCE scheme. The scheme runs for the school term only and was discontinued. The Respondent has a predominantly female workforce and time was afforded for hospital and medical appointments. 3 Risk assessments were carried out in April, May and June of 2018 which identified risks for the Complainant in doing school pick-ups in poor weather conditions and also general lifting and bending. Appropriate measures were implemented by agreement with the Complainant. The Respondent denies that the Complainant was dismissed due to her pregnancy or was discriminated against by comparison with employees on contracts of indefinite duration. The Complainant was the only employee on a fixed-term contract. The Complainant lacks service to make a claim pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals acts, there is no basis for the claims made under the Fixed-Term Work Act, the Part Time Work Act or the Maternity Protection Acts.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
I have read the written submissions of the parties and considered the submissions made at the hearing. CA-00021958-002 The Complainant worked part-time (20 hours) for the Respondent from 4th September 2017 to 29th June 2018. The Complainant signed a contract of employment with the Respondent which contained the following clause: “Commencement Date: Your employment with the creche shall be for 38 weeks and commence on 4th September 2017 and cease on 29th June 2018.” S2 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015 provides: (1) Except in so far as any provision of this Act otherwise provides, this Act shall not apply in relation to any of the following persons: (a) An employee (other than a person referred to in S4 of this Act) who is dismissed, who at the date of his dismissal, had less than one year’s continuous service with the employer who dismissed him…… ……..(2) Subject to section 2A this act shall not apply in relation to- ………………………………….. (b)dismissal where the employee was under a contract of employment for a fixed-term or for a specified purpose (being a purpose of such a kind that the duration of the contract was limited but was, at the time of its making incapable of precise ascertainment) and the dismissal consisted only of the expiry of the term without its being renewed under the said contract or the cesser of the purpose and the contract is in writing, was signed by or on behalf of the employer and by the employee and provides that this Act shall not apply to a dismissal consisting only of the expiry or cesser aforesaid….” The contract of employment is signed by both parties and specifies a contract length of 38 weeks. The employment contract does not specify that the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015 shall not apply to a dismissal consisting only of the expiry of the contract. The Labour Court has repeatedly emphasised the requirement that the terms of S2 (2) b of the Act must be fully satisfied in Sheehan v Dublin Tribune Ltd [1992] ELR 239 and other rulings in order for the exemption to apply. In this case, as the Complainant was only employed for a period of 38 weeks she does not have the requisite continuous service in order to make a complaint of unfair dismissal under the Act. However, S 6 (2) (f) of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015 provides: “ without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal if it results wholly or mainly from one or more of the following: ………………….. (f) the employee’s pregnancy, attendance at ante-natal classes, giving birth or breastfeeding or any matters connected therewith, (g) the exercise or proposed exercise by the employee of a right under the Maternity (Protection Act 1994 to any form of protective leave or natal care absence , within the meaning of Part IV of that Act, or to time -off from work to attend ante-natal classes in accordance with section 15A (inserted by Section 8 of the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act 2004) or to time off from work or a reduction of working hours for breastfeeding in accordance with Section 15B (inserted by section 9 of the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act 2004, of the first mentioned Act.” The Complainant commenced working with the Respondent in September and was moved to the Montessori room in January 2018. She initially worked daily from 9-2pm. She has Fetac level 5 and supported the Montessori teacher. She informed the Respondent of her pregnancy in January 2018. She was diagnosed with a pregnancy related illness, which meant she was restricted in some times that she could work. She was required to leave work at 1.15 pm on Mondays, and attend an early clinic one Friday morning per month. On one Friday morning every 4 weeks she attended work at 10.45am. Subsequent to the move to the Montessori room, the Complainant says her hours were reduced to 9-1pm as the numbers in the creche reduced. The Complainant says that one other colleague received hours from 9-3pm. The Complainant says she was not given any reason for non-renewal of her contract. When she asked the owner did she have any summer staff available, she was told the creche had enough staff as numbers were down over the summer. As it was a 38 week contract, the Complainant was told she would have to reapply for work the following September. The Complainant’s baby was due in September. There is evidence of numerous advertisements for roles in the Respondents 2 creches for full and part-time work for childcare practitioners in the months following the expiry of the Complainant’s fixed-term contract of employment. I have considered the applicable case law, the Labour Court decision in McBrierty v NUI Galway EDA091, the decision of the Court of Justice in Melgar v Ayuntamiento de Los Barrios (C-438/99) and Directive 92/85/EC. In Melgar the Court considered the case-law in Dekker (C-177/88) and Mahlburg (C-207/98) which restated that non-renewal of a fixed-term contract of a pregnant woman amounts to a refusal to engage a pregnant woman contrary to the Directive. There is no prohibition against fixed-term contracts of employment expiring which are not renewed by employers, unless the non-renewal is motivated by the worker’s state of pregnancy. The Respondent did not appear at the hearing. It is evident that the Respondent had work available for the Complainant following expiry of her contract in June 2018, which she requested but was not offered. The Complainant was kept in the ECCE room in January 2018 to look after term-time children after she announced her pregnancy. No other substantial issue arose in relation to her employment. The Complainant was informed her hours were reduced due to her medical condition. The Complainant’s contract did not contain any clause providing the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015 shall not apply to a dismissal consisting only of the expiry of the contract. In all the circumstances, I find the Complainant was unfairly dismissed on the grounds of her pregnancy. The Complainant took her maternity leave early due to her dismissal from 30th June 2018 to 14th January 2019. She has not been able to obtain a part-time creche role since January. Her financial loss is 210 euro gross per week, and I am awarding her 6 months financial loss of 4,620.00 euro gross taking into account her losses to date and the period of time it will take to find alternative employment. CA-00021958-003 The Complainant claims that she has been treated less favourably than a comparable permanent employee pursuant to S14 of the Protection of Employment (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 as her hours were reduced in the past months. She also confirms the number of children in the creche had reduced at the same time , on balance I find this complaint is not well founded. CA-00021958-004 The Complainant also complains that she did not receive a written statement justifying the renewal of her fixed-term contract. No renewal of her contract took place and accordingly I find this complaint is not well founded. CA-00021958-005 The Complainant’s claim pursuant to S10 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 that she was not informed of vacancies for permanent employment is well founded and I award 1,000 euro compensation for the breach. CA-00021958-006 The Complainant complains that her employer failed to provide to employee representatives information regarding fixed-term work. There was no evidence of fixed-term work being advertised or available, and I find this complaint is not well founded. CA-00021958-007 The Complainant’s claim that she did not receive her entitlement to maternity-leave under S30 and S31 of the Maternity Protection Acts 1994-2004. The Complainant took her maternity leave early following termination of her employment and received her social welfare entitlements. If she had not been dismissed prior to her maternity-leave she would have also accrued pay during her maternity-leave for annual leave and public holidays. Her annual leave is calculated at 8% of 20 hours per week for 28 weeks which is 470.40 euro together with 210 euro for 5 public holiday, total 680.40 euro. I award 1,500 euro total compensation to include the economic loss to the Complainant which is just and equitable in respect of the breaches of the Maternity Protection Acts 1994-2004 by the Respondent. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 8 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.
CA-00021958-002 I find the Complainant has been unfairly dismissed and I award her 6 months financial loss of 4,620.00 euro gross which is just and equitable in the circumstances. CA-00021958-003 I find this complaint is not well founded. CA-00021958-004 I find this complaint is not well founded. CA-00021958-005 The Complainant’s claim is well founded and I award 1,000 euro compensation for the breach. CA-00021958-006 I find this complaint is not well founded. CA-00021958-007 I uphold this claim and award compensation of 1,500 euro for non-payment of annual leave and 5 public holidays which the Complainant was due for the period of her maternity leave under the Maternity Protection Acts 1994-2004.
|
Dated: 16/08/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Davnet O'Driscoll
Key Words:
Renewal of fixed-term contract, unfair dismissal connected with pregnancy, non-advertisement of roles, breach of maternity protection acts 1994- 2004 annual leave and public holidays. |
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00016913
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {A Childcare Worker} | {A Creche} |
Representatives |
| Aidan McGrath DAS Group |
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-00021958-002 | 19/09/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003 | CA-00021958-003 | 19/09/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003 | CA-00021958-004 | 19/09/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003 | CA-00021958-005 | 19/09/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003 | CA-00021958-006 | 19/09/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 30 and 31 of the Maternity Protection Act 1994 | CA-00021958-007 | 19/09/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/11/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Davnet O'Driscoll
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 andSection 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The Complainant is a childcare practitioner who was employed from 4th September 2017 part-time until 29th June 2018. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant interviewed for the position in August 2017. She was told she would be able to travel in September 2018. She was never informed it was a once off 38 week contract of employment before or during her employment. She was told by the owner her work is brilliant and she never had any issues whatsoever. She informed her employer she was pregnant on 18th January 2018. She was diagnosed with gestational diabetes early in her pregnancy and had to attend a clinic at 1.30pm each Monday. The Complainant noticed that her duties were being allocated to other staff (putting sleepers to sleep, school collections). When she asked she was told it was because of the snow and because of her diabetes they were worried about the Complainant walking. On 6th June 2017 the Complainant asked the owner if she needed a letter of confinement and was told no. When she asked about filling in the social welfare maternity leave form she was told this was not necessary. She spoke with the owner the following day as she was confused. The owners said she presumed with the Complainant’s 38 week contract that she would have to reapply the following year for a job. The Complainant telephoned the owner to ask if she could work for the summer and was told the Respondent did not need any assistance as there would be a lot of children on holidays. The Complainant saw a position being advertised in the creche on 7th, 10th, 14th and 20th June and 10 August 2018. The Complainant’s contract was not renewed and she was not given any reason for this. She was given the impression that she would be employed long-term as they discussed the future. She was never given the impression it was a once-off contract and she would not have left 2 other jobs for this role had she known this. She felt guilty for having to attend diabetic breakfast club on Friday mornings every 4 weeks, but was told it would not be safe if she attended in the afternoons, when she was not working. She tried to have her medical appointments outside working hours. The Complainant feels she was treated differently due to her pregnancy. The Complainant says that she has been treated less favourably as a fixed-term worker than a comparable permanent employee. The Respondent has failed to give her a written statement setting out the objective grounds justifying renewal of a fixed-term contract and failure to offer a contract of indefinite duration under the Protection of Employees (Fixed-term Work) Act 2003. The Respondent has failed to inform her of opportunities for permanent employment or appropriate training opportunities under the 2003 Act. The Respondent failed to provide to employee’s representatives information about fixed-term work Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003. In addition, the Complainant claims that she has not received her entitlement to maternity-leave under the Maternity Protection Act 1994.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent furnished written submissions on 11th October 2018 denying the claim of unfair dismissal. The Respondent furnished a fixed-term contract of employment from 4th September 2017 to 29th June 2018 for 38 weeks which was signed by the Complainant on 18th October 2017. This was issued after 1 month’s trial, for 38 weeks and it suited the Complainant. The contract states that the duties of each member of staff may change from time to time. The Respondent denies any wrongdoing as the contract just ceased. The Complainant accepted the verbal notice on 28th May 2018 and written notice on 13 June 2018. This was the first time they had appointed someone for a 38 week period for the ECCE scheme. The scheme runs for the school term only and was discontinued. The Respondent has a predominantly female workforce and time was afforded for hospital and medical appointments. 3 Risk assessments were carried out in April, May and June of 2018 which identified risks for the Complainant in doing school pick-ups in poor weather conditions and also general lifting and bending. Appropriate measures were implemented by agreement with the Complainant. The Respondent denies that the Complainant was dismissed due to her pregnancy or was discriminated against by comparison with employees on contracts of indefinite duration. The Complainant was the only employee on a fixed-term contract. The Complainant lacks service to make a claim pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals acts, there is no basis for the claims made under the Fixed-Term Work Act, the Part Time Work Act or the Maternity Protection Acts.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
I have read the written submissions of the parties and considered the submissions made at the hearing. CA-00021958-002 The Complainant worked part-time (20 hours) for the Respondent from 4th September 2017 to 29th June 2018. The Complainant signed a contract of employment with the Respondent which contained the following clause: “Commencement Date: Your employment with the creche shall be for 38 weeks and commence on 4th September 2017 and cease on 29th June 2018.” S2 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015 provides: (1) Except in so far as any provision of this Act otherwise provides, this Act shall not apply in relation to any of the following persons: (a) An employee (other than a person referred to in S4 of this Act) who is dismissed, who at the date of his dismissal, had less than one year’s continuous service with the employer who dismissed him…… ……..(2) Subject to section 2A this act shall not apply in relation to- ………………………………….. (b)dismissal where the employee was under a contract of employment for a fixed-term or for a specified purpose (being a purpose of such a kind that the duration of the contract was limited but was, at the time of its making incapable of precise ascertainment) and the dismissal consisted only of the expiry of the term without its being renewed under the said contract or the cesser of the purpose and the contract is in writing, was signed by or on behalf of the employer and by the employee and provides that this Act shall not apply to a dismissal consisting only of the expiry or cesser aforesaid….” The contract of employment is signed by both parties and specifies a contract length of 38 weeks. The employment contract does not specify that the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015 shall not apply to a dismissal consisting only of the expiry of the contract. The Labour Court has repeatedly emphasised the requirement that the terms of S2 (2) b of the Act must be fully satisfied in Sheehan v Dublin Tribune Ltd [1992] ELR 239 and other rulings in order for the exemption to apply. In this case, as the Complainant was only employed for a period of 38 weeks she does not have the requisite continuous service in order to make a complaint of unfair dismissal under the Act. However, S 6 (2) (f) of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015 provides: “ without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal if it results wholly or mainly from one or more of the following: ………………….. (f) the employee’s pregnancy, attendance at ante-natal classes, giving birth or breastfeeding or any matters connected therewith, (g) the exercise or proposed exercise by the employee of a right under the Maternity (Protection Act 1994 to any form of protective leave or natal care absence , within the meaning of Part IV of that Act, or to time -off from work to attend ante-natal classes in accordance with section 15A (inserted by Section 8 of the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act 2004) or to time off from work or a reduction of working hours for breastfeeding in accordance with Section 15B (inserted by section 9 of the Maternity Protection (Amendment) Act 2004, of the first mentioned Act.” The Complainant commenced working with the Respondent in September and was moved to the Montessori room in January 2018. She initially worked daily from 9-2pm. She has Fetac level 5 and supported the Montessori teacher. She informed the Respondent of her pregnancy in January 2018. She was diagnosed with a pregnancy related illness, which meant she was restricted in some times that she could work. She was required to leave work at 1.15 pm on Mondays, and attend an early clinic one Friday morning per month. On one Friday morning every 4 weeks she attended work at 10.45am. Subsequent to the move to the Montessori room, the Complainant says her hours were reduced to 9-1pm as the numbers in the creche reduced. The Complainant says that one other colleague received hours from 9-3pm. The Complainant says she was not given any reason for non-renewal of her contract. When she asked the owner did she have any summer staff available, she was told the creche had enough staff as numbers were down over the summer. As it was a 38 week contract, the Complainant was told she would have to reapply for work the following September. The Complainant’s baby was due in September. There is evidence of numerous advertisements for roles in the Respondents 2 creches for full and part-time work for childcare practitioners in the months following the expiry of the Complainant’s fixed-term contract of employment. I have considered the applicable case law, the Labour Court decision in McBrierty v NUI Galway EDA091, the decision of the Court of Justice in Melgar v Ayuntamiento de Los Barrios (C-438/99) and Directive 92/85/EC. In Melgar the Court considered the case-law in Dekker (C-177/88) and Mahlburg (C-207/98) which restated that non-renewal of a fixed-term contract of a pregnant woman amounts to a refusal to engage a pregnant woman contrary to the Directive. There is no prohibition against fixed-term contracts of employment expiring which are not renewed by employers, unless the non-renewal is motivated by the worker’s state of pregnancy. The Respondent did not appear at the hearing. It is evident that the Respondent had work available for the Complainant following expiry of her contract in June 2018, which she requested but was not offered. The Complainant was kept in the ECCE room in January 2018 to look after term-time children after she announced her pregnancy. No other substantial issue arose in relation to her employment. The Complainant was informed her hours were reduced due to her medical condition. The Complainant’s contract did not contain any clause providing the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015 shall not apply to a dismissal consisting only of the expiry of the contract. In all the circumstances, I find the Complainant was unfairly dismissed on the grounds of her pregnancy. The Complainant took her maternity leave early due to her dismissal from 30th June 2018 to 14th January 2019. She has not been able to obtain a part-time creche role since January. Her financial loss is 210 euro gross per week, and I am awarding her 6 months financial loss of 4,620.00 euro gross taking into account her losses to date and the period of time it will take to find alternative employment. CA-00021958-003 The Complainant claims that she has been treated less favourably than a comparable permanent employee pursuant to S14 of the Protection of Employment (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 as her hours were reduced in the past months. She also confirms the number of children in the creche had reduced at the same time , on balance I find this complaint is not well founded. CA-00021958-004 The Complainant also complains that she did not receive a written statement justifying the renewal of her fixed-term contract. No renewal of her contract took place and accordingly I find this complaint is not well founded. CA-00021958-005 The Complainant’s claim pursuant to S10 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 that she was not informed of vacancies for permanent employment is well founded and I award 1,000 euro compensation for the breach. CA-00021958-006 The Complainant complains that her employer failed to provide to employee representatives information regarding fixed-term work. There was no evidence of fixed-term work being advertised or available, and I find this complaint is not well founded. CA-00021958-007 The Complainant’s claim that she did not receive her entitlement to maternity-leave under S30 and S31 of the Maternity Protection Acts 1994-2004. The Complainant took her maternity leave early following termination of her employment and received her social welfare entitlements. If she had not been dismissed prior to her maternity-leave she would have also accrued pay during her maternity-leave for annual leave and public holidays. Her annual leave is calculated at 8% of 20 hours per week for 28 weeks which is 470.40 euro together with 210 euro for 5 public holiday, total 680.40 euro. I award 1,500 euro total compensation to include the economic loss to the Complainant which is just and equitable in respect of the breaches of the Maternity Protection Acts 1994-2004 by the Respondent. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 8 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.
CA-00021958-002 I find the Complainant has been unfairly dismissed and I award her 6 months financial loss of 4,620.00 euro gross which is just and equitable in the circumstances. CA-00021958-003 I find this complaint is not well founded. CA-00021958-004 I find this complaint is not well founded. CA-00021958-005 The Complainant’s claim is well founded and I award 1,000 euro compensation for the breach. CA-00021958-006 I find this complaint is not well founded. CA-00021958-007 I uphold this claim and award compensation of 1,500 euro for non-payment of annual leave and 5 public holidays which the Complainant was due for the period of her maternity leave under the Maternity Protection Acts 1994-2004.
|
Dated: 16/08/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Davnet O'Driscoll
Key Words:
Renewal of fixed-term contract, unfair dismissal connected with pregnancy, non-advertisement of roles, breach of maternity protection acts 1994- 2004 annual leave and public holidays. |