ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00049431

Parties:

Complaint:

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  14/05/2024

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 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 complaint is that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed when she was on sick leave due to a medical condition connected with pregnancy.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant was employed as a Chef with the Respondent from 16th August 2023 until 30th November 2023.  On that date she received an email stating that with sick leave and being on a 3 month probationary period, she had only worked for 5 weeks with the Respondent so she did not need to send in any more medical certificates.  The Complainant gave evidence on affirmation.  She said she took the job and didn’t know she was pregnant at the time.  She began to suffer pregnancy complications almost immediately.  Her contract of employment said she would be on a three month probationary period and that her performance would be monitored and she would be advised of same.  She was employed on an hourly rate of €14 per hour for a 30-35 hour week.  When she had to go on sick leave, she discovered that the Respondent had sought applications for her job.  She could not claim maternity benefit as she did not have enough social welfare contributions so the termination of her employment had an affect on that.  She also discovered that according to Revenue.ie her employment was terminated on 29 September 2023.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

On behalf of the Respondent Mr M gave evidence by affirmation.  He stated that the Complainant was on a 3 month probation period from 16th August 2023. The Creche was under financial pressure.   There was a core funding issue, which resulted in closing 3 rooms and outsourcing the food and there is no one employed in the kitchen now.  On behalf of the Respondent Ms McC gave evidence on affirmation.  She stated that the business was ‘downscaling’ due to fee freeze and core funding problems. 

Findings and Conclusions:

Section 6 of the Act provides:

“6-(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal unless, having regard to all of the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.

(2) 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 of more of the following:

 (f) the employee’s pregnancy, attendance at ante-natal classes, giving birth or breastfeeding or any matters connected therewith,

Section 6 (2) (f) is very clear that the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed to be an unfair dismissal if it results from an employee’s pregnancy.

In this case, the Complainant notified the Respondent of her pregnancy and provided a medical certification of her impending absence for 4 weeks.  Screenshots of messages provided by the Complainant showed that the Respondent replied stating that as she was half way through her pregnancy and this would bring her “further on” could she let her know if she intended to return to work as she needed to fill the position as soon as possible as the creche “is too busy as you know”.  The Complainant was then told by a friend that her position was advertised.  She was subsequently advised by text on 30 November 2023 that as her probation was broken and she had been on sick leave, had only worked 5 weeks there was no need to send in further certs.  The Complainant discovered that her employment had been terminated per the Revenue website on 29 September 2023.

Based on the evidence, I find that the Complainant’s dismissal resulted wholly from pregnancy and the dismissal was unfair.  I consider compensation to be the appropriate remedy.  I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €4,200 compensation for the unfair dismissal.

Decision:

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.

I have decided that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent and I require the Respondent to pay her compensation in the amount of €4,200.

Dated: 09/07/2024

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Key Words: