Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Emma Ward

Kerona Scientific Limited

Representatives

Séamus Storan, Staff Advisory Services

David O'Riordan, Sherwin O'Riordan Solicitors

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00032583-001

29/11/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 18 of the Parental Leave Act 1998

CA-00032583-002

29/11/2019

The respondent is a scientific consultancy company that provides advice to businesses importing chemicals and fertilizers into Europe.  When the complainant was employed, the company had seven employees, including the managing director (“MD”) and the chief operations officer (“COO”).  The majority of the staff are engaged in scientific work and the complainant’s job was that of office manager and personal assistant to the MD.  The complainant joined the company on July 2nd 2018.  She had a full-time contract, working 37.5 hours each week and her annual salary was €35,000.  On May 31st 2019, she was given two months’ notice of redundancy and her employment ended on July 31st.  The complainant claims that her dismissal was unfair.  She also claims that she was prevented from taking her entitlement to parental leave.

Chronology Leading to the Termination of the Complainant’s Employment

On May 23rd 2019, the complainant attended a meeting with the COO, who informed her that the company was in a poor financial position and that he was looking at ways to make savings.  He told her that he was considering how her role would be carried out in future and he told her that parts of her job were no longer necessary or could be done by him or by the MD.  The COO gave the complainant a letter confirming that her job was at risk of redundancy.

The following day, the complainant met the COO again.  She enquired about the difference between being “at risk” of redundancy and being made redundant.  The respondent’s submission notes that the COO told the complainant that her job was at risk of redundancy, but that she was welcome to suggest an alternative option.

On May 27th 2019, the complainant sent the COO an email saying that she was unable to attend work because of the stress caused by the possibility of her job being made redundant.

On May 31st, the COO sent the complainant written notice that her job would be made redundant and that she would finish up with the company on July 31st. 

The complainant remained out of work due to illness and on  June 5th, she sent the COO an email in which she acknowledged the letter of May 31st.  She said that she had been in a car accident and would be unable to return to work before her notice expired.  On June 21st, she sent another email and requested that her outstanding wages and holiday pay would be processed in the July payroll.  Her employment ended on July 31st 2019.

The respondent’s submission states that they “identified the complainant’s role as being possible to carry out by subsuming it into the business.”  Part of her duties became obsolete and others were carried out by the COO.  This was a standalone role and it no longer exists in the respondent’s business.  The complainant has not been replaced.  The respondent’s position is that it explored possibilities for alternatives to the redundancy of the complainant’s job, but that no such alternatives existed.

In his submission at the hearing, Mr O’Riordan responded to the complainant’s allegation that her dismissal arose from her “highlighting past financial irregularities.”  He said that the respondent “is a stranger to these allegations” and that the complainant never raised any concerns about such matters when she was employed.

Noting that the characteristics of redundancy are impersonality and change, Mr O’Riordan submitted that the redundancy of the complainant’s job was impersonal to her, but was related to the role she occupied, which was unique in the company and which has not been replaced.  From the perspective of change, the fact that the COO absorbed the complainant’s role into his job is indicative of the change that had to occur. 

Evidence of the Chief Operations Officer

The COO described the company’s business and the work carried out by the scientists to provide a service to clients importing fertilizer.  He said that of the seven people currently employed, six are engaged in regulatory work.

Following the redundancy of the complainant, the COO said that the work that she carried out as a personal assistant to the MD was no longer carried out.  The invoicing, bank reconciliations and the work of dealing with suppliers is now done by the MD herself.  All of the staff take turns answering the phone. 

Noting that the complainant’s witness, a former employee, will give evidence that another employee, “Ms AB,” took over the complainant’s job, the COO responded that Ms AB was employed because she speaks German.  Ms AB joined the company in 2017.

The COO said that the complainant raised concerns about cash flow.  He disagreed that there was tension about finances between him and the MD.  He said that he held the MD to account and that this was normal in the business.

Mr O’Riordan referred to the complainant’s assertion that she was diverted from her job to deal with the MD’s personal affairs and that she came into possession of personal information related to the MD’s children.  The COO said that the complainant never said that she was concerned about data protection issues.

The COO said that he had no discussion about redundancies earlier than May 23rd 2019 and that the complainant never suggested that she would take parental leave as an alternative to being made redundant.

In response to questions from me, the COO said that he was previously involved in the company on a part-time basis, working weekends and evenings and that he left his previous employment to take on the role of COO in March 2019.  He said that taking on the complainant’s job was a learning curve, as she had introduced new accounting software, but he is now up to speed.  He said that the business has gone from being reasonably profitable in 2017, to hardly any profit in 2018, and a small profit in 2019.  The profit in 2019 was less than 20% of what it was in 2017.

Cross-examining of the Chief Operations Officer by Mr Storan

The COO disagreed with Mr Storan when he said that the complainant raised the possibility of taking parental leave at their meeting on May 24th 2019. 

Mr Storan asked why Ms AB had moved from her part-time job of teaching German to the MD to carrying out administration work.  He said that the complainant was willing to reduce her hours, and that she could have done the work now carried out by Ms AB.  The COO said that the complainant didn’t suggest that she could do an alternative job.

Mr Storan suggested that, when the complainant came into the possession of certain confidential information related to the MD, that she fell out of favour with her.  He suggested that Ms AB is now doing 70% of the complainant’s job.  The COO disagreed and said that the personal assistant element of the complainant’s job is no longer being done and he is doing the remaining 70%.

Mr Storan said that the complainant is adamant that she raised concerns about having personal information about the MD’s children, but the COO said that this is not the case.

Concluding the Evidence of the Chief Operations Officer

The COO said that he deals with post, stationary, general office supplies and all aspect of the accounts job.  He said that Ms AB used to work an average of five hours a week, and that she now works from 10.00am until 1.00pm from Monday to Friday.  He said that in September 2019, the company won a large contract from a German company and that this needs more frequent interaction.  As a result, Ms AB was asked to work more hours.  He agreed that she sent out the Christmas cards in December 2019.

Evidence of the Managing Director

The MD said that part of the complainant’s job was to look after some personal matters.  She said that there was no hostility between her and the complainant and that she had no issues with her work.  She said that the complainant did not ask to take parental leave.

Cross-examining of the Managing Director by Mr Storan

Mr Storan suggested to the MD that when the COO took on his role, he was more amenable to certain changes that the complainant had proposed and that this caused tension with her.  He said that the complainant highlighted accounting procedures at daily meetings and that this was a source of awkwardness and embarrassment.  The MD recalled an invoice that had been paid by a client “up front” and the MD said that they were still working with that client.  The MD said that there was no tension between her and the complainant and that, contrary to Mr Storan’s assertion, she did not ignore the complainant when she was in the office.

Evidence given on April 23rd 2021 by a Current Employee

This employee, “Ms CE,” said that she joined the company in March 2017 and she is a senior regulatory consultant and a project manager with the company. She has regular contact with clients and she manages a team.  She is a toxicologist and a chemist.  Ms CE said that she is familiar with the job that the complainant did, and she listed her responsibilities related to accounts, managing holidays and leave, answering the phone, dealing with couriers and the post, and acting as the personal assistant to the MD.

In answer to Mr O’Riordan’s question, “what happened to the complainant’s job?” Ms CE said that the COO took over the financial parts and whoever is available answer the phones.  In the mornings, Ms AB answers the phones, she said that she answers the phones in the middle of the day and someone else does the afternoons.  She said that the COO looks after the post and advertising and that the MD no longer has a personal assistant.

Describing Ms AB’s job, Ms CE said that she supports the senior scientists, and does translating and form-filling related to regulatory work.  She sends out emails to member states and fills in safety data sheets.  She said that “she takes the pressure off the scientists.”

Ms CE said that Ms AB doesn’t do the work that the complainant used to do, and that most of this is done by the COO.  She said that Ms AB does regulatory work.

Cross-examining of the Current Employee by Mr Storan

Mr Storan asked Ms CE how much translation is required in the company.  She replied that some projects require translation, and others do not.  Translation work is billed to the clients at an hourly rate.

Ms CE agreed with Mr Storan that it is not necessary to have a science qualification to do the work that is currently being done by Ms AB.

Ms CE explained the rota for answering the phone, with Ms AB assigned to part of the morning rota.  Mr Storan asked Ms CE about the tasks carried out by Ms AB, but she did not appear to know what work she did.  She said that she didn’t see Ms AB sending out Christmas cards.  She knew that she attended a meeting every morning with the MD and the COO, but she said that she didn’t know what the meeting was about.

Re-direction by Mr O’Riordan

Ms CE said that Ms AB speaks German and Italian.  She said that the German authorities insist on everything being done through German and if she is working with a German client, Ms AB “does everything.”

In response to a question from Mr Storan, she said that the need for German translation could be daily, depending on a project, or it could be sporadic.

In Mr Storan’s opening submission, he said that the complainant implemented a new accounts software package in January 2019 and worked with the COO when he joined the company in March that year to ensure that all accounts were up to date and so that new opportunities could be identified.  The complainant reviewed the accounts for 2018 and re-entered all previous accounts payable and receivable, invoices, banking, bank reconciliations and expenses.  As the COO got more involved in the business, the complainant appraised him about her concerns regarding cash flow and the lack of orders in the pipeline.  She also raised a concern about an invoice raised in 2017 for which, by 2019, the respondent had not carried out all of the work.     

Client contact sheets were developed for the MD, for her to pursue new business.  Mr Storan said that as the weeks went by, tensions developed between the COO and the MD because, up to then, the business had not been managed in such a strategic manner.  He said that the MD became more demanding and difficult to work with and that she went out of her way to get the complainant to focus on more trivial matters related to her children and diary management, rather than business issues.  The complainant brought her concerns about being diverted in this way to the attention of the COO in April 2019.

The complainant found her relationship with the MD deteriorating, to the point where she felt that the MD ignored her or she was reprimanded for things that were outside her control.

The complainant’s case is that during the week of May 14th 2019, the COO said that they may have to make some jobs redundant, but that this was a long way off.  Mr Storan said that the complainant told the COO that, when she completed a year’s service in July 2019, she would like to take parental leave.  She suggested that this would create some savings for the company.

At a meeting on May 23rd, the complainant was informed that her job would be made redundant.  In a letter given to her by the COO on the same day, she was advised that her job was at risk of redundancy.  She claims that she asked if there was an alternative that could be considered, such as being laid off or taking parental leave but she claims that she was told that the decision was final.

It is the complainant’s case that her job was made redundant because she highlighted and resolved some incorrect accounting procedures that occurred under the MD’s stewardship before the COO took on his role.  Her implementation of the new accounting system caused a further deterioration in her relationship with the MD.  She believes that she was unfairly selected for redundancy and that no consideration was given to any alternative options.

Mr Storan referred to the complainant’s job description, a copy of which was submitted in his book of papers at the hearing.  He said that the witness for the complainant will give evidence that the majority of her duties have been assigned to a newly hired employee, Ms AB.  Mr Storan said that the complainant’s job was “not entirely redundant” and, while the COO took over her finance role, the remaining part of her job is carried out by Ms AB.

It is the complainant’s contention that her redundancy was not genuine, and that it was implemented because the relationship between her and the MD gradually deteriorated.  Mr Storan said that proper procedures were not followed and that the complainant, rather than the employer, was expected to come up with alternatives.

Evidence of the Complainant

The complainant joined the company in July 2018 and the COO became fully involved in March 2019.  He said that the MD was unhappy with the COO’s approach and that this made her uncomfortable.  She gave examples of how working relationship with the MD became fraught.  She said that the MD expected her to work on her personal affairs and that, as time went on, apart from work-related conversations, she was ignored.

The complainant said that there were three parts to her job, her personal assistant role, the finance part of her job and the office management part.

At a meeting on May 14th 2019, the complainant said that she discussed the issue of cash flow with the COO, and she said that she asked him if they would have to make people redundant. He said that this was a long way off.  The complainant said that, to generate some savings, she offered to take parental leave.  She said that the COO responded, “that’s good to know.”

On May 23rd, the COO informed the complainant that her job would be made redundant.  She agreed that she didn’t express surprise.  She said that the COO said, “we’ll take on board your suggestions.”  This was in relation to the complainant’s suggestions of possible alternatives to redundancy.  The following day, the complainant said that she asked the COO if she could take parental leave.  She said that she could also take unpaid leave and she suggested that she could work from home one day a week.

On May 27th, the complainant said, “it hit me that I had no job” and she went out sick due to stress.

Cross-examining of the Complainant

Mr O’Riordan referred to the minutes of the meeting the complainant attended with the COO on May 23rd.  She agreed that the COO referred to the difficult financial state of the company, however, she said that she was told that her job was redundant, and not that it was a risk of redundancy.  She said that she was given a letter confirming that her job might be made redundant, but that she had been told at the meeting that it was “a done deal.”

At the meeting on May 25th, the complainant said that she proposed alternatives to redundancy.  None were considered and she was informed that she was to train the COO on the finance package.

Evidence of the Complainant’s Former Colleague

The complainant’s former colleague, “Ms FC,” said that she joined the company in September 2017 as a regulatory consultant and she left on September 25th 2020.  Ms FC said that she was on parental leave from March to September 2019 and that she took more leave until November or December 2019.  When she returned, the complainant had been made redundant.  She said that there were changes in the company that she found puzzling.  She said that the COO was looking after holiday requests and the company’s finances.

Ms FC said that when she returned from leave at the end of 2019, Ms AB carried out more work than she had previously.  She updated the client list, answered the phones, organised a conference and booked flights and arranged training.  She sent out the company’s Christmas cards and she ordered stationary.  In January 2020, Ms AB was introduced to the work of preparing quotations. She was involved in ordering promotional materials and the preparation for a trade show.  She had an input into the company’s website.  Ms FC said that Ms AB’s role is purely administrative and that she starts work at 10.00am and finishes at 1.00pm.

Ms FC said that the only difference between what the complainant did and what Ms AB does is that Ms AB speaks German.  She pointed out however, that the complainant is fluent in Turkish.

In response to a question from me, Ms FC said that, before she went on leave, Ms AB came to the company to teach German to the MD.  When she returned, she was there every day.

Cross-examining of the Complainant’s Former Colleague by Mr O’Riordan

Ms O’Riordan asked Ms FC why she left the company and she replied that, from her perspective, it was “going in the wrong direction.”  She said that there was no prospect of growth, increased wages or training.  She said that, like the complainant, she has twins, and the company didn’t take account of family commitments and there was no flexibility.  Ms FC said that there was sometimes conflict between the MD and clients.

At the end of Ms FC’s evidence, Mr O’Riordan said that her “mal fides is clear and she is trying to make out a case where her hatred is palpable.”

Ms FC responded that she had a right to say what she said.  She said that there was no opportunity for her in the company, and that five other employees left for the same reason.  She said that when the complainant was hired, she was “a breath of fresh air” and that she made it easier for the regulatory staff to do their jobs.

The Relevant Law

It is the complainant’s case that, in terminating her employment, the respondent breached section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 – 2015, (“the Act”) which provides that a dismissal is unfair, “unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.”  The burden of proof therefore rests with the respondent to establish the substantial grounds justifying the dismissal of the complainant in this case.  The respondent’s position is that the complainant’s job was made redundant to reduce costs.  It is their case that following her dismissal, the finance element of the complainant’s job was carried out by the COO, the personal assistant part was no longer done and the office administration part was shared between the COO and others.  The complainant’s case is that another person, “Ms AB,” who had been teaching German to the MD for five hours a week, was given a part-time job for three hours a day, five days a week.  She asserts that much of Ms AB’s time is now taken up with the tasks she used to do.

Section 6(3) of the Act states:

“Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, if an employee was dismissed due to redundancy but the circumstances constituting the redundancy applied equally to one or more other employees in similar employment with the same employer who have not been dismissed, and either—

“(a) the selection of that employee for dismissal resulted wholly or mainly from one or more of the matters specified in subsection (2) of this section or another matter that would not be a ground justifying dismissal, or

“(b) he was selected for dismissal in contravention of a procedure (being a procedure that has been agreed upon by or on behalf of the employer and by the employee or a trade union, or an excepted body under the Trade Union Acts, 1941 and 1971, representing him or has been established by the custom and practice of the employment concerned) relating to redundancy and there were no special reasons justifying a departure from that procedure,

“then the dismissal shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal.”

In the case under consideration, “the circumstances constituting the redundancy” was what was described in the respondent’s submission as the company’s “poor financial position.”  The complainant was the only person occupying an administrative role in the company, and her job was the only one selected for redundancy.

Section 6(7) of the Act provides that, in considering a complaint of unfair dismissal I, as the adjudicator, may have regard,

“(a) to the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct (whether by act or omission) of the employer in relation to the dismissal, and 

“(b) to the extent (if any) of the compliance or failure to comply by the employer, in relation to the employee, with the procedure referred to in section 14(1) of this Act or with the provisions of any code of practice referred to in paragraph (d) (inserted by the Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Act, 1993) of section 7(2) of this Act.”

Essentially, this section provides that I can consider the employer’s adherence or failure to adhere to a procedure that the employee has been notified of that will be used in the event of a decision to terminate her employment.  While there is no reference to redundancy in the complainant’s contract of employment, under the heading of “Short-time working and Lay-off,” her contract of employment provides that,

“Should it be necessary to make employees redundant due to market issues, such measures will only be taken after due consultation with employees.”

The complainant did not have the requisite two years’ service to give her an entitlement to a payment under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012.  However, the definition of redundancy, as set out at section 7 of these Acts is the starting point for a consideration of the respondent’s position.  Section 7(2) sets out five definitions of redundancy.  For our purpose here, we need to concern ourselves with the definition at subsection 7(2)(c):

“…an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if, for one or more reasons not related to the employee concerned, the dismissal is attributable wholly or mainly to—  

“(c) the fact that his employer has decided to carry on the business with fewer or no employees, whether by requiring the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) to be done by other employees or otherwise…”

Was the Complainant’s Job Redundant?

The respondent’s case is that the complainant was made redundant was because of the difficult financial state of the business.  Audited accounts were not presented in evidence; the COO provided bottom-line details of the profits in 2017, 2018 and 2019.  From this, I gleaned that, in 2019, profits were around 20% of what they had been in 2017 and that 2018 was a worse year than 2019.  No evidence was presented that any alternative to making the complainant’s job redundant was considered.  I heard that the COO only joined the business full-time in March 2019, having been involved in business development roles for a number of years.  We heard no evidence regarding the cost of his remuneration, or if he gave any consideration to returning to his previous occupation.  No evidence was presented concerning any other costs, and it appears that the only item identified that could contribute to a financial saving was the complainant’s  job.

In St Ledger v Frontline Distributors Ireland Limited, UD 56/1994, the chairman, Mr Dermot McCarthy remarked that redundancy “has two important characteristics, namely, impersonality and change.”  In 2003, the view of the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) in this and other cases led to the amendment of section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act and the insertion of the statement underlined above which emphasises that redundancy is impersonal, and “not related to the employee.”  The focus of redundancy must, in the first instance, be on a job.  Its purpose is to eliminate a job or to effect change on a job and not a person. 

It may have been necessary to reduce costs in the respondent’s business; the complainant herself was aware of cash flow issues and a slow pipeline of in-coming work.  This financial problem coincided with a cooling in the relationship between the MD and the complainant after the COO joined the business.  While the MD explained the difficulties between them as a normal part of managing the financial problems, I cannot say if the tense working relationship was reason that the complainant’s job was made redundant, but it seems to me that it contributed to the decision not to consider an option other than redundancy.

I accept that, when the complainant was made redundant, the “personal assistant to the MD” aspect of her role was no longer done.  I also accept that the COO may have taken on some of the financial tasks, but I do not believe that he took over all the financial tasks, or that he did the administrative part of her job.  It is clear to me, that by increasing the hours of “Ms AB,” who was formerly engaged to teach German to the MD, Ms AB assumed certain parts of the complainant’s job.

From the perspective of fairness, this would have been acceptable if Ms AB had been able to do the complainant’s job as well as her own.  We heard in evidence however, that Ms AB’s hours have been increased from five to 15 hours a week.  As Ms AB was given 10 additional hours a week after the complainant was dismissed, it follows not all of the complainant’s job was redundant.  It’s likely that the German lessons didn’t carry on indefinitely and we heard from Ms CE that Ms AB attends the daily meeting in the mornings with the MD and the COO.  It is apparent to me that Ms AB was given additional hours to cover part of, and perhaps close to half of the complainant’s job.

Alternatives to Redundancy

It is my view that the complainant’s original job was redundant, but that some parts of her job remained.  She could have been offered a part-time job, carrying out office administration and some financial tasks.  There was no discussion with the complainant regarding this option, or any other alternative to redundancy.  The COO’s notes of the meetings of May 23rd and 24th do not show that the complainant suggested any alternatives.  While these notes were not agreed with the complainant, I think that it is unlikely that, before the termination of her employment, she made any suggestions regarding alternative possibilities for her to remain with the company.  In any event, as the party with the power to make decisions about the allocation of work, the responsibility for identifying an alternative to redundancy lies with the employer. 

As part of a genuine consultative process, an employee may suggest alternatives to redundancy.  In the case under consideration, the complainant’s email correspondence to the COO in May and June 2019 makes no mention of an offer to go part-time or to take parental leave.  In an email on Monday, May 27th, she wrote to the COO and the MD to say that she wouldn’t be at work that week because of the stress of the “news I received on Thursday last.”  She concluded her email by saying,

“If there is any correspondence you need to issue to me which cannot wait until next week, it is probably best to put it in the post.”

On June 5th, she sent another email in which she wrote,

“I received the termination letter yesterday in the post, thank you for that.”

In the remainder of this email, she confirmed that she wouldn’t be back at work before the termination of her contract and she instructed the COO about how her claim for illness benefit from the Department of Social Protection should be handled by payroll.  From this, it seems to me that the complainant accepted that her job was redundant and she invited the COO to confirm the matter in writing.  If she was serious about continuing to work for the respondent in a reduced role, or to take parental leave, it is my view that she would have written to the COO with an outline of her proposals.  In her evidence, the complainant said that, when she was notified that her job would be made redundant, she contacted her insurance broker to see if her income continuance policy would be activated.  It seems to me that, with the financial cushion provided by the insurance company, she acquiesced regarding her redundancy.

Conclusion

It is my view that, when her employment was terminated on July 31st 2019, a redundancy situation did not exist and that, as an alternative, the complainant could have been offered a part-time role.  It is my view that the respondent was influenced by the fraught relationship between the MD and the complainant and, in this context, the “impartiality” referred to in the St Ledger v Frontline decision was compromised.

I am not satisfied that the complainant suggested an alternative to redundancy, and in May 2019, it appears that she accepted her fate.  Months later, she became aggrieved when she heard that Ms AB was working more hours than previously, and that she was doing some parts of her job. 

I have already given my views regarding the responsibility of the employer and not the employee to consider alternatives to making a job redundant.  Leaving aside the complainant’s acquiescence and, taking all the evidence into account, I find that the decision to dismiss her on the ground of redundancy was unfair.

I have concluded that the dismissal of the complainant was unfair.  Of the redress options available, the complainant selected compensation.  With regard to mitigations, she said that, due to illness, she was unable to take up work until eight months after her employment ended.  In March 2020, she said that she started work in an online sales business, but she provided no evidence of her remuneration.  

In my consideration of the amount to be awarded in redress, I have taken account of the fact that the complainant worked for the respondent for just one year, and that she was absent for the 12th month of her employment.  I am mindful also of the complainant’s un-resistant response to the decision to make her job redundant, despite her assertion that she had a stress reaction.  Finally, I note that the complainant claimed for loss of earnings from her income protection policy.   

In respect of my conclusion that her dismissal was unfair, I decide that the respondent is to pay the complainant compensation of €8,750, equivalent to three months’ pay.  As this award is in the form of loss of earnings, it is subject to the normal statutory deductions.

The complainant has twins and her submission states that she informed the COO that she wanted to take parental leave from July 2019, when she would have completed one year’s service.  The documents she submitted in evidence provide no indication of a written application for parental leave, or any evidence that she notified the COO in writing that she intended to apply for the leave.

It is the respondent’s case that the complainant did not apply for parental leave and that she did not discuss her intention to take parental leave with the MD or the COO.

No evidence was submitted at the hearing of this complaint that the complainant applied for parental leave or that she discussed an interest in taking parental leave with the COO or the MD.  In the absence of such evidence, and, based on the evidence of the respondent that the complainant never requested parental leave, I find that there is no substance to this complaint.

I decide that this complaint is not well-founded.

Redundancy, unfair dismissal, parental leave