ADJ-00027241

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Assistant wedding coordinator

Hotel

Representatives

Patrick Branigan Phelan Branigan Solicitors. Ms Caroline McGrath, B.L

Ms. Lisa Weatherstone, B.L., Peninsula Group Limited

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00034697-001

13/02/2020

 The complainant commenced employment with the respondent on 1/6/2016 as a receptionist, progressing to a senior receptionist in December 2016. In July 2019 she was promoted to the position of Assistant Wedding and Events Co-ordinator with a salary increase. Her gross weekly salary was €480.76.

 The complainant contends that she was discriminated on the grounds of gender and family status on 14 November 2019 when the respondent advised her that her position was being made redundant and she was to revert to a receptionist’s position.

She submitted her complaint to the WRC on 13 February 2020.

The complainant contends that she was discriminated against on the 14 November when the respondent informed her that her current role of Assistant Wedding Co-ordinator was being made redundant and that she was to move into her former role as receptionist at the same salary due to a decrease in wedding bookings. The complainant contends that this decision related to her pregnancy. The complainant became very upset and unwell at the behaviour of the respondent and had to go on sick leave until her maternity leave commenced on 4 May 2020.

Prior to this transfer on the 14 November, she had been on sick leave from the end of October to 11 November- a period for which she presented a certificate from a maternity hospital. The General Manager on receipt of same enquired from the Sales and Marketing Manager as to why a cert had issued from a maternity hospital.

Complainant’s direct evidence.

The complaiant worked as an Assistant Wedding and Events Coordinator from July 2019.She reported to the Wedding co-ordinator, Ms A. From June – December 2019. The number of wedding bookings rose from 19 -53. She believed she was doing well at that task.

A new General manager commenced in August 2019.

The complainant was absent from 30 October to 11 November. On November 5th she emailed a certificate for the latter period. Her partner had suffered an assault and she was supporting him. Upon return to work on 11 November she advised the General Manager of the assault.

On discovering her pregnancy in October, the complainant had immediately told the Receptionist, the Sales and Marketing Manager, the Housekeeper. She told the HR manager at lunchtime on 14 November. The complainant was frequenting the toilet, vomiting and was putting on weight. She liaised with the General Manager re uniforms.

The complainant advised that she did not attend the sales meeting of the 13 November.

On the 14 November the complainant asked the HR manager when she should advise the General Manager of her pregnancy. The HR manager stated that it was not necessary at that point.

The General Manager asked the complainant to attend a meeting on the 14 November, of 10 minutes duration. The General Manager told the complainant that she wanted her to revert to her role on reception on the same salary. The shift hours did not suit the complainant. The complainant became upset and left the meeting.  At no stage prior to 14 November was any mention made to her that her position was not viable. Orders were going up.

The complainant emailed the General Manager on the 15 November stating that she believed it was her pregnancy which drove the decision and queried why, if the respondent was prepared to pay her the same salary, she could not continue with the same job.

The respondent replied that evening telling her that it was reception or redundancy. The respondent did not advise the complainant of any appeal process or grievance procedure option. The complainant couldn’t understand the respondent’s choice of her for redundancy as there had been new hires and a new accountant; the complainant was selling the business.

She attended at work on Sunday 17 November. The accountant told her on the 18 November that she had to produce a sick cert because she had mentioned that she was stressed. She went on sick leave due to stress up until her maternity leave kicked in on 5 May 2020. She got illness benefit of €200 per week as opposed to €452 take – home pay. It affected her relationship with her partner and with her new baby who was difficult.

Cross- examination of the Complainant.

The complainant stated that the way the General Manager spoke to her revealed her dislike of the complainant.

The complainant emailed the General Manager on the 5 November with a medical certificate for the period October to 11 November from the Sexual Assault Treatment Unit attached to a maternity hospital. She accepted that it did not indicate an ante -natal appointment. The complainant added that the respondent should have guessed she was pregnant.

She did not ask HR to tell the General Manager. The complainant stated that she did not know for certain if the General Manager knew of her pregnancy.

The complainant confirmed that the first time she informed the General Manager directly of her pregnancy was on 15 November.

She had not asked any staff member to withhold the existence of her pregnancy from the General Manager.

As to why she had not activated a procedure against this decision to move her back to Reception, she stated that she had not been advised of any procedure.

The complainant accepted that the financial viability of the company was an issue but couldn’t understand why her role as wedding events coordinator had to go; previously it had always been the hourly paid workers whose hours were reduced.

The complainant stated that the general manager had advised her that they could talk about childcare issues when they arose.

 The complainant experienced 4 months of stress and emotional upheaval after the 14 November. The damage was done, and she could not return to attend meetings requested by the respondent in February. The sexual assault of her partner aggravated the situation.

In reply to why her General Manager could have known that she was pregnant, the complainant stated that the General Manager should have known because the complainant could not inform her of what size uniform she required.

Evidence of Witness 2; Sales and Marketing Manager. Ms B

In November 2019 she was Sales and Marketing Manager. She worked with the complainant on boosting wedding sales. She shared accommodation with the complainant. The complainant had told her that she was pregnant at six weeks gestation.

The complainant sent her a medical certificate while she was on sick leave; she sent it on, unread, to the General Manager. The General Manager asked Ms. B if she knew why the medical certificate issued from a maternity hospital. She advised the General Manager that she did not know. She left the company in Feb 2020.

Before November 2019 redundancy was never mentioned.

At the meeting on the 13 November, the Sales and Marketing consultant, Ms. D, told the witness that her role would change; she would be on the road for 3 days a week, she would coordinate bookings for events and weddings. Inbound sales would be done by the complainant and Wedding Coordinator. There was no mention of redundancy. The witness was not asked if she would like to work in reception. She was asked if she wanted to take on the residency manager’s role. As to whether the complainant exhibited signs of pregnancy, she was requesting decaf coffee and was frequently nauseous and vomiting and had started to put on weight. She had a chat with the residency manager to see if they needed to size up the complainant for a uniform.

Cross- Examination of Witness 2.

She stated that she did not advise the complainant to tell the manager as the complainant was not yet 16 weeks pregnant. The witness did not tell the General Manager that the complainant was pregnant.

At the sales meeting on the 13 November the witness stated that she was not told that the financial difficulties were the basis for asking her to change her role. The difficulties were no different to what was apparent before. The respondent had more staff. She accepts that they were trying to save money.

The witness stated that all the changes in the complainant could lead the General Manager to conclude that the complainant was pregnant.

Evidence of Witness 3; the Wedding Coordinator, Ms C.

She had been the wedding manager for 4 years. She now works in another company. She reported to the General Manager and the complainant reported to the witness. The complainant was amazing, had a great work ethic and was very reliable.

She knew of the complainant’s pregnancy on her return to work in November as she had been informed by the Sales and Marketing Manager. She cannot recall the date.

She had noticed the complainant’s change to decaf coffee, weight gain and saw that she was vomiting.

The witness was unaware of the meeting of 14 November at which it was intended to advise the complainant of her redundancy. The general manager did not discuss this with the witness.

The complainant left the office on the 14 November in a very upset state.

 Cross- examination of Witness 3.

When asked why she did not inform the General Manager of the complainant’s pregnancy, the witness stated that it wasn’t her place to inform the General Manager. The complainant was less than 12 weeks pregnant.

The witness accepted that there was a downturn in wedding bookings. She had not been made aware of financial dangers for the company. The respondent had advised her that floor staff costs had to be trimmed. Neither the General Manager, nor the Finance Manager or the HR had ever discussed the elimination of the complainant’s job with her. Had this been advanced, she would have advised against it as she believed it to be a necessary position

In cross examination the witness accepted that decaf coffee can be drunk by non- pregnant women. The witness stated that the General Manager did not discuss the restructuring of the wedding sales department or coordinators’ roles.

At the sales meetings there was no mention of loss of business or of the need to shed jobs.

Prior to the appointment of the General Manager, the witness was informed of the hiring of new staff; her opinion was sought.

Burden of proof.

The complainant contends that the circumstances leading up to her change of role on 14 November are such as to as to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and are of sufficient significance to raise an inference of discrimination.

The decision to make the complainant’s role redundant was based on gender.

The complainant maintains that no genuine redundancy existed, and it was merely the fact of her pregnancy, the signs of which were emerging, and a fact known to 4 other employees including the HR manager, plus the maternity leave scheduled for May 2020 at one of the busiest times of the year, which drove the decision to demote her. It is not credible that the General Manager was unaware of the complainant’s pregnancy given the complainant’s change in behaviour, change in physical appearance, the cert submitted from the maternity hospital which prompted her to enquire from the Sales and Marketing Manage. Furthermore, not one shred of evidence of redundancies was under consideration before 14 November, not to the Board or the Financial Controller. After her solicitors got involved it moved from a definite redundancy to a risk of redundancy. The respondent failed to afford the complainant any appeal against the adverse treatment and did nothing other than confirm her demotion knowing the distressed state of the complainant. This is evidence of a prima facie case of discrimination.

 Impact on the complainant.

The decision to make her role redundant had a huge bearing on her mental well-being with sleep disturbance, anxiety and mood swings. The Occupational Health appointments offered to the complainant in February 2020 and in March 2021 were aggravating factors adding to the complainant’s distress.

The financial strain for the complainant now off work for 68 weeks and on illness benefit amounts to a loss of €15,000.

She waited to resign until March 2021 knowing that her trust and confidence in the employer had gone.

The complainant relies on Trailer Care Holdings Limited v Healy   which held that “it was abundantly clear” that women were to be afforded “special protection from adverse treatment while pregnant “ The complainant states that this case established that pregnancy need not be the only factor driving the adverse treatment -in that case- the decision to dismiss. The respondent must prove that the adverse treatment in the instant case- a redundancy and demotion- was unconnected with her pregnancy and there is no evidence to support this.

The complaiant must therefore succeed in her complaint of discrimination on the grounds of gender and family status contrary to the provisions of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 – 2015.

The respondent denies that they discriminated against the complainant under any of the grounds in the Employment Equality Act 1998.

The respondent runs a boutique hotel, employing 35 full time staff and 40 part time staff. In November 2019 there were 3 employees working on securing wedding bookings; Ms. C, Wedding and Events Coordinator, Ms. B, Sales and Marketing Manager, in the position for 6 years, and the complainant who moved from her position as senior receptionist to the position of Assistant Wedding and Events Coordinator in July 2019.

A new General Manager took up employment with the respondent in August.

Throughout the end of October and November daily meetings were held at which staff including the complainant were advised of the necessity for cost cutting measures due to a downturn in business. From January 2019- October 2019, there were only 55 weddings booked, from November - December only 8 booked and none booked for January or February 2020.

The respondent advised the complainant on the 14 November of their plan to move her out of the Assistant Wedding Coordinator role and back to Reception, with no loss of salary as bookings for weddings were seriously down, but that should wedding bookings recover, she would be moved back into that role.

The respondent General Manager had no knowledge of the complainant’s pregnancy on the 14 November.

Direct Evidence of Witness 4; Ms. E, General Manager.

Since August 2019, she has held the job of General Manager for the entire hotel which is owned by a group of investors. She reports to a three-person Board every fortnight.

The previous manager was let go because there were only 19 weddings secured for 2020. In 2018 they secured 68 weddings, in 2019, 60 weddings. Normally weddings are booked 18 months in advance.

After her appointment in July 2019 she undertook a renovation of the staff quarters and canteen which were uninhabitable.

She states that she found the complainant to be very good at her job and had a pleasant personality.

When she had asked the complainant to train staff at reception in the Autumn, the complaiant did not object and worked shift patterns during this 2-week period, nor did she raise concerns about child care issues at that time.

In November the witness was told that the complainant was off work with a family crisis. No one knew when she intended to return to work. Upon her return from sick leave on 11 November, the witness met the complainant. She was very upset due to an issue concerning her partner. The complainant did not disclose her pregnancy.

The respondent by now was conducting daily operational meetings. The respondent replaced the accountant in October 2020. The new Financial Controller’s job was to identify what was draining the business and how to restructure it. The complainant received emails from the accounts department revealing a downturn in business and the necessity for cost cutting measures. There were three staff members doing weddings. It was not feasible to continue with this amount of staff and only 50 weddings

In the meeting on the 14 November, the complainant did not mention shift work on reception. The witness advised the complainant that her pay would remain unchanged and that they could work around hours. The 9.00 to 5.30 pm shift was one option in reception.

On 15 November the Sales and Marketing Manager and the Wedding Coordinator confirmed that they knew of her pregnancy. The HR manager told the Financial Controller on the 15 November that she had been told as a friend and not in any formal capacity of the complainant’s pregnancy.

The witness requested the complainant to undergo a medical examination as stress was mentioned by her at the meeting and she was tearful.

The complainant did not engage with the respondent but embarked on legal advice on the 15 November.

The Wedding and Events Coordinator had resigned in December. Given this vacancy, the witness told the respondent Board in December that she would like to bring the complainant back. The witness invited the complaiant to apply for the now vacant position and to explore other alternatives. She did not do so. The witness wrote on the 13 February inviting the complainant to resume her position as Assistant Wedding and Events Coordinator. This offer was facilitated by the additional resignation of the Sales and Marketing Manager who had not been replaced. Furthermore, bookings had increased by then for the summer months. This combined set of circumstances enabled the respondent to make this offer to the complainant. She declined the offer and the witness filled the post.

Cross Examination of the General Manager.

She explained that she had been brought in to try and turn things around for the respondent. She signed a contract in August.

When asked why she queried the medical certificate, she responded that she was thrown as it had come from the Sexual Assault Treatment Unit of a maternity hospital.

She never saw any difference in the complainant’s weight.

She acknowledged that the complainant had told the HR manager but had done so in an unofficial manner and that the HR manager had never informed the witness of the pregnancy. She did not discuss directly with the complainant the precariousness of her job prior to 14 November. The witness stated that the role was only brought in in July and that it was experimental to see how it would work out - a pilot.

The witness does not see her transfer to the role of senior receptionist as a demotion- it’s on a par with an Assistant Wedding Coordinator.

When asked why no memorandum had been sent to the Board recommending a redundancy, the witness stated that she had discussed the redundancy with the Financial Controller. The witness stated that she spoke to the Wedding Coordinator in August about excessive wage costs and the need for restructuring. She did not consider any other role for redundancy. The Sales Manager had been there 6 years. The industry average is one coordinator per every 50 weddings. The Wedding Coordinator was there 4 years and had no experience as a receptionist.

She disputes the assertion that there would be no cost savings achieved by the redundancy, as the complaiant was being slotted into a vacancy which had arisen through a resignation.

The witness stated that she would have seen the move to reception as possibly temporary.

The witness referred to her email of the 15 November advising that if business improved, the complaiant would be first in line for a role in wedding coordination and sales. In the same email she also refers to the fact that discussions were ongoing in October with the accountant to see how costs could be reduced. The accountant took up his role in the beginning of October.

She reiterated that none of the three staff members who knew of the complainant’s pregnancy informed her of this fact.

Evidence of Witness 5, Mr A, Financial Controller since October 2019.

He discovered on appointment in October 2019 that no evidence or analysis existed as to the hotel’s revenue. Everybody just coasted along. No comparisons were made with what the hotel was doing or earning from one day/ week/ Month to another.

The hotel was down on business and in wedding bookings for October and for the following year.

A daily morning meeting was set up to monitor business and income.

It was clear to the Mr. A that there were two solutions; reduce labour costs and increase turnover.

Daily reports on the financial health of the company were sent to the Sales and Marketing Manager and the Wedding Coordinator. The complainant attended many of these 11am meetings. The General Manager was unaware that the complainant was pregnant. The General manager first informed the witness of the complainant’s pregnancy on 16 November.

In cross examination, the witness confirmed that the emphasis at the team meetings was on increased turnover. The witness confirmed that there was no written plan or proposal for redundancies.

Evidence of Witness 6, Ms F.

Ms, F was a freelance marketing consultant with the respondent since October 2019.

She had frequent meetings with the Sales and Marketing Manager and the General Manager about a sales and marketing plan and the need for a proactive approach, for example, that the Sales and Marketing Manager would go out on the road to sell the venue as a wedding destination. The complainant did a lot of the reservations. The respondent had three staff engaged in securing wedding bookings. This was above the industry norm. which would employ one person per 100 weddings.

The witness stated that restructuring was discussed on the 13 and 14 November, as was sales and marketing and who should be answering the phones.

The witness stated that she did not know that the complainant was pregnant until 21 November

Evidence of Witness 7, Ms. G.

Ms G took up the position of provincial manager in June 2020 with responsibility for HR.

She defended the respondent’s invitation to the complainant to attend a welfare meeting in March 2021 notwithstanding the fact that the complaiant had submitted her resignation.  

Knowledge of the complainant’s pregnancy.

The respondent’s barrister stated that the complainant accepted that she couldn’t be sure that the General Manager knew of her pregnancy. The General Manager doesn’t monitor which type of coffee was drunk by which member of staff. She was unaware of whatever discussions were ongoing regarding a uniform for the complainant. She was 11 weeks pregnant and not heavily pregnant. . There was no indication from the Sexual Assault Treatment Unit of the maternity hospital that she was pregnant. The three staff members who did know did not inform the Respondent and were told in a personal capacity. The complainant has not established a prima facie case of discrimination. The three indicators put forward by the complainant are not reasonable indicators to assume that a woman is pregnant

She had only started in July in her role as Coordinator. Both of the complainant’s witnesses accepted that the company was in financial difficulty.

In relation to the stress which the complaiant states she suffered because of the respondent’s treatment of her, she has admitted that the assault of her partner also caused her a lot of stress.

The respondent told the complainant she would work with her around the hours in the Receptionist role.

Discriminatory Treatment.

The respondent states that if the Adjudicator decides that a prima facie case has been established, she must find that the complainant was not discriminated against. The respondent told the complainant she would work with her around the hours in the Receptionist role. She was going to maintain the same rate of pay. Other roles changed. The sous chef was not replaced. The receptionist was let go and thus made way for the complainant. Some staff incurred pay cuts.

In relation to how the complainant’s role was identified for redundancy, it was left to herself and the Financial Controller to decide on how to trim costs. The company is owned by an investor; there is a 3-person Board who meet the General Manager every fortnight. The Board were not aware of how many worked in the wedding sales area. The redundancy was not discussed with the Board. The Financial Controller and the General Manager agreed that wage costs would have to be reduced by 60%. The Financial Controller agreed not to replace the receptionist and that someone from sales should be moved to reception. The complainant was the last person appointed to the sales office. The Sales and marketing Manager had no training in reception.  But the respondent had lost a receptionist so with the Sales and Marketing Manager earmarked to go on the road to secure bookings, that would leave 1.5 staff in the office. Wage cuts were imperative.

Legal Submission.

The respondent denies that the complaiant was treated less favourably on grounds of her gender and family status contrary to section 6 of the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015.

The temporary relocation was communicated to the complainant on 14 November before the respondent knew of her pregnancy on the 15 November and therefore her pregnancy in no way contributed to the change in her role. The respondent relies on the definition of a pregnant worker found in EU Pregnant Worker’s Directive (92/85/EEC) and Article 2(a) which states

“For the purpose of this Directive:

(a)          Pregnant worker shall mean a pregnant worker who informs her employer of her condition in accordance with national legislation and or/ national practice”

As the respondent was unaware of the complainant’s pregnancy on the 14 November when she was informed of the temporary relocation back to Reception, she is therefore unable to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. The respondent relies on the decision of Mulroney v Laboratory Supplies Ltd Lennox, ADJ 0020234 where the Adjudicator found that the protection of the Act arises when the employer is notified of a pregnancy and that in the absence of same and

 “where an employer had no knowledge of the pregnancy then it meets the test set out by the Court that the dismissal was in no sense whatsoever related to her pregnancy”

Given that the respondent was unaware of the complainant’s pregnancy they could not have discriminated against her.

The respondent also relies on the decision of Sweeney v HSE Midland Area, EDA 0819 where the Labour Court held that a temporary transfer on the same pay or by placing that complainant on Health and Safety Leave did not contravene the Act

 The respondent distinguished between the facts of Travel Care Holdings and the instant case where the respondent was not only fully aware of the complainant’s pregnancy but where

 “the dominant disposition of the Respondent towards the complainant descended into one of enmity.”

The complainant’s position remains open and is available to her.

The adjudicator is asked to reject the complaint.

I am required to establish if the complainant was discriminated against on grounds of gender and family status contrary to section 6 (2)(a) and (c) of the Acts.

I must first consider if the complainant has established a prima facie case of discrimination.

Burden of Proof.

Section 85A of the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015 lays the onus of proof with the complainant to establish a prima face case of discriminatory treatment contrary to the Acts. Section 85A (1) of the Acts states that

“In any proceedings where facts are established by or on behalf of a complainant from which it may be presumed that discrimination has occurred in relation to him/her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary”

In the case of Teresa Mitchell v Southern Health Board (Cork University Hospital) AEE/99/8, [2001] 12 E.L.R. 201, the Labour Court concluded that”

 “a complainant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, the primary facts on which they rely in seeking to raise a presumption of unlawful discrimination. It is only if these primary facts are established to the satisfaction of the Court, and they are regarded by the Court as being of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of discrimination, that the onus shifts to the respondent to prove that there was no infringement of the principle of equal treatment”

The complainant must discharge this evidential burden. If she does, the respondent must prove that she was not discriminated against on grounds of her sex. If she does not, her case cannot succeed.

In Hallinan v. Moy Valley Resources DEC-S2008-25, a complaint taken under the Equal Status Act, 2000, the equality officer held that in order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the following must be established:

(a) The complainant must establish that he or she is covered by the protected ground;

(b) Establish the specific treatment has allegedly taken place

(c) The treatment was less favourable than was or would be afforded to a person not covered by the relevant discriminatory ground

Applying the above preconditions for the purposes of establishing if a prima facie case of discrimination has been met, the complainant is covered by the protected ground by virtue of section 6(2) (a) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015. The Labour Court in Trailer Care Holdings Ltd v Deborah Healy EDA128 stated that  

“the jurisprudential principle that discrimination on grounds of pregnancy constitutes direct discrimination on grounds of sex is now codified in Directive 2006/54/EC on the Principle of Equal Treatment of Men and Women (the Recast Directive). This Directive provides, at Article 2.2(c), that any less favourable treatment of a woman related to pregnancy or maternity leave within the meaning of Directive 92/85/EEC constitutes unlawful discrimination for the purpose of that Directive”.

Specific treatment occurred in that the complainant’s role was made redundant and she was transferred out of the post to which she had been promoted on a higher salary 4 months previously, and in to her former role though at the same rate of pay.

Less favourable treatment

The question for determination is whether the identification of the Assistant Wedding and Events Coordinator role for redundancy constitutes less favourable treatment than would be afforded to a non- pregnant female or a male.

I do not accept the respondent’s contention that the alternative post offered to her was on a par with her current role notwithstanding that she would incur no loss of salary. I accept that a move back to a receptionist position did result in a reduction in responsibility and less direct influence in selling the venue and in the decision-making fora of the company. After all the job to which had been promoted in July 2019 commanded a higher salary than that of a receptionist.

Knowledge of her pregnancy lay with four colleagues.

I do  not accept that the confluence of clues about her pregnancy constitutes notification to the employer, and alone they would not constitute prima facie evidence of discrimination , but when combined with the fact of her pregnancy, a total absence of any reference to redundancy until knowledge of her pregnancy was in circulation in the workplace, and an absence of consultation about the earmarking  of her role for redundancy leads me to conclude that this combination  does raise an inference of discrimination on grounds of gender and family status and the onus now moves to the respondent to rebut the presumption of discrimination. In O’Higgins V UCD 2013, EDA 131, the Labour Court in varying the decision of the Equality Tribunal that the complainant had not made out a prima facie case of discrimination held that

 “It is not necessary to establish that the conclusion of discrimination is the only or the most likely explanation which can be drawn from the proven facts. It is sufficient if it is within the range of presumptions that can be properly drawn”

Has the respondent rebutted the presumption of discrimination?

Protection against redundancy during pregnancy and in what circumstances this might be tempered by objective factors unrelated to pregnancy was considered in the case of Kearney v Lettertech Ireland Limited. The selection criteria used in determining which employee should be made redundant were accepted. The Labour Court observed that the complainant was the most recent employee recruited, that the employer had produced evidence to show it was required to cut costs and that it had reduced its workforce across all sections of its business. In finding that the termination of the complainant’s employment was related to objective factors unconnected to her pregnancy, the Equality Tribunal was influenced by the fact that the other employees who had been selected for redundancy included both men and women across all sections of the business.

In the instant case, it is agreed that wedding bookings were down. It is accepted that the complainant knew the company was under financial strain. Copies of emails were submitted in evidence demonstrating  the loss of revenue. It is uncontested that the respondent wished to cut costs. An email of the 9 October to the Sales and Marketing Manager itemised the need to restructure the sales department. It was not disputed that the number of staff promoting and pursuing wedding bookings was above the industry norm. There had been only one person in the sales office in 2018 when a higher number of weddings (68) had been booked. So, it is not the case that there was no knowledge that changes were being considered. The changes had not crystallised into identifying the complainant’s role as being expendable.

The company’s headcount decreased. A male chef was not replaced. The respondent had let a receptionist go. They needed to fill that post. The complainant’s role of Assistant Wedding Coordinator was not filled. She was offered the receptionist’s post as an alternative with no loss of salary.

In examining further why the complainant ‘s role was selected for redundancy, she was the last appointed to the Sales Department. She had previous experience and /or more recent experience on Reception unlike the other two employees in the Sales Department.

When the situation arose, they were able to slot her back into the Assistant Weddings and Events Coordinator role. I do not accept the case made by the complainant that this was done to mend their mistakes as the departure of three staff enabled this reversal.

The fact that the redundancy process was handled in an unstructured and unfair manner in that there was no consultation process and no appeal offered to the complainant on the 14 November does not mean that this sloppy approach- which may offend the Act of 1967 - was because the complainant was pregnant. This is a complaint under the Employment Equality Act and it is those provisions which must guide the examination of whether the respondent discriminated against her. The evidence from the complainant’s witnesses is that the General Manager did not discuss staff choices, appointments or changes with the staff. This aspect of her manner of doing business was criticised by one of the complainant’s witnesses.

The complainant relied on the decision in Trailer Care Holdings Ltd v Deborah Healy, EDA 128 which reiterated the “inviolable” protections available to pregnant employees against adverse treatment. But it is distinguishable from the instant case in that not only was that complainant dismissed, but the respondent in restructuring the company engaged an additional member of staff to undertake work which that complainant had previously undertaken. The Court found that she had been discriminatorily dismissed.

These circumstances did not apply in the instant case.

The respondent put forward a credible case for the reorganisation of the wedding sales function and the redundancy of the role held by the complainant.

Based on the evidence and authorities, I find that making the role of the Assistant Weddings and Events Coordinator role redundant and transferring the complainant to the role of receptionist was based on objective factors unrelated to the complainant’s pregnancy and family status.

Based on the evidence and the above conclusions, I accept that the respondent has rebutted the inference of discrimination on the grounds of gender and family status.

In reaching my decision in this case, I have considered all of the submissions, both oral and written.

I find that the that the complainant was not discriminated against by the respondent on the basis of her gender or family status in terms of conditions of employment, contrary to S.8(1)(b) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015.

I find that the complainant was not discriminated against on the basis of her gender or family status.

Knowledge of pregnancy; redundancy; rebuttal of presumption of discrimination