Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

An Employer

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-00052283-001

17/08/2022

The Complainant alleges that she was unfairly selected for Redundancy due to her absence from work following IVF treatment.

The Complainant started with the Respondent 07.09.2020. She was an assistant manager. After the first lockdown ( 2021), the Respondent hired a new manager however she didn’t turn up for her first week. The Respondent then appointed the Complainant as a manager in July 2021. In November 2021 she stepped back from that position because she was having IVF treatment. She wanted to reduce her stress levels. She informed the Respondent in early November that she was going to embark on the IVF journey. The Respondent was supportive. She kept them informed at all stages of the process and gave notice when she would have to take leave. In January she had her first transfer. She took two weeks off immediately following that. She returned at the end of January. She spoke to the owner and informed them that the IVF had failed. She then received a letter on 3rd February stating that her role was being made redundant. Her employment was due to finish on 20th February. She did finish earlier, but she was paid in lieu. She was not given an opportunity to appeal the decision. This was the first time she had heard anything about a redundancy situation. It came as a surprise to her manager also.

She was paid €500 per week. € 395 was paid into her bank account and she received an envelope on Fridays with € 105 in cash. 

The Complainant knew that she was due to have her second transfer and maybe third transfer in March and May 2022 so she decided to take time off while she was doing that. She then decided to start her own business. That was in August 2022. However, that didn’t work out for her, so she decided to go back into the workforce in January 2023. She finally got a job in April 2023. She did receive social welfare for six months.  She is earning € 400 gross per week.

The Respondent company is in Liquidation. The Liquidator corresponded with the WRC stating that the complaint would not be contested.

Due to the very private and medically sensitive nature of the Complainant evidence I find that it is appropriate to anonymise the decision.

The within complaint is uncontested. The Complainant gave evidence under oath stating that after she was informed by her doctor that she would have to undergo IVF treatment she informed the Respondent immediately and told them that she would be obliged to take two weeks off following the transfer of embryos. She had only returned to work after the first transfer when she received a letter from the respondent dated 03.02.2022 stating that her position was being made redundant. This was done in the absence of any consultation process whatsoever. The Complainant was completely unaware that her role was in jeopardy prior to receipt of the correspondence. She was not given an opportunity to appeal the decision either.

The Complainant secured new employment in August 2023.

The Complainant knew that she was due to have her second transfer and third transfer in March and May 2022, so she decided to take time off while she was doing that. She then decided to start her own business. That was in August 2022. However, that didn’t work out, so she decided to go back into the workforce in January 2023. She finally got a job in April 2023. She is paid € 400 gross per week now. She did receive social welfare for six months during the time she was unemployed. She was earning € 395 per week with the Respondent.

The Complainant was actively trying to mitigate her loss from August 2022 until she finally secured employment in August 2023. Based on the uncontested evidence that there was no consultation process whatsoever and that the Complainant was denied her right to an appeal, I find that the Complaint is well founded. In all of the circumstances I find that the most appropriate remedy is that of compensation. I award the Complainant €10,000.00

The complaint is well founded. I award the complainant €10,000.00 compensation.

Redundancy. Consultation Process. Denied Appeal. Mitigation of loss.