Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Sarah  O'Donohoe

Ardscoil Na Mara

Complainant

Respondent

Representatives

Eoghan Ryan, ASTI

Mr C McGreal BL  briefed by Ms C Kelly of Mason, Hayes & Curran LLP

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-00075144-001

04/09/2025

The case concerns a Secondary School Teacher who makes a complaint that she was refused an extension/renewal of her Career Break by the Respondent School. She maintained that the refusal to extend /renew her Career Break was Discrimination against the Employment Equality Act 1998 on the Gender, Family Status, Age and Conditions of Employment Grounds

The employment was stated to have begun on the 20th August 2014 and continues.

The rate of pay is the Secondary Teacher Dept of Education scale.

The Age ground was withdrawn at the Oral Hearing.

The Complainant was represented by Mr Eoghan Ryan of the ASTI. Extensive Oral testimony was given by the Complainant, and a substantial Written Submission was relied on in support.

In essence the main argument from the Complainant was that she was the primary carer for her young family. Maternity leaves, Parental leaves and Career Breaks, prior to this application, had greatly facilitated this Family Care. It was very forcefully stated in the Evidence that there were no suitable/Available Child Care/Creche facilities in the local Town. Returning to work in this context was an impossibility for her.

By the non-renewal of the Career Break the School Authorities were clearly discriminating against a Female on the Gender grounds and a Mother on the Family Status Grounds.

Mr Ryan of the ASTI pointed to what he felt were inconsistencies and illogicality in the School Approach. There was no strong Objective Grounds put forward to base a refusal decision. Section 22(1)(b) of the Act was referenced.

Extensive case law was cited both Irish and European - the Labour Court in Inoue v NBK Designs (EED0212) was extensively relied upon as was the Adjudication case of a Training Specialist v A Pharmaceutical Company -ADJ-00025115. The ECJ case of Bilka -Kaufhaus was a critical reference element of both these cases.

Extensive cross examination between the Parties took place.

The Respondent was represented by Mr McGreal BL supported by the School Principal and other Senior Staff. A substantial Written submission was relied upon in support of extensive Oral testimony.

In essence, the Respondent position was that Career Breaks are granted by Schools when it is operationally possible, within School Resources to do so. The overall guidelines being set out in Department of Education circular 54/2019 which was presented in evidence by both Sides.

In Oral testimony, the School Principal acknowledged that the Career Break, in question, had initially been provisionally agreed (26th February 2025) (subject to the School being able to source a suitable replacement Teacher by the 30th June 2025) to cover the Complainant’s duties.  This did not prove possible. The Principal informed the Complainant Teacher of this by letter of the 12th June 2025 refusing the Career Break extension sought.  This decision was appealed to the School Board of Management. By letter of the 25th June 2025 the refusal was endorsed by the Board.

Mr McGreal BL cogently argued that a Career Break from a School was not an Employment “Right” enshrined in Statute. It was conditional on the Employer, in this case the School being able to facilitate it without disrupting the efficient running of the School. The Principal came to the view that the non-availability of the Complainant, a senior Maths and Geography Teacher for a further year, would be injurious to the academic welfare of the School Pupils. The expression used was that the “Continuity and quality of education” was being put at risk. The Principal and Deputy Principal gave Oral testimony to this effect. Details of various “ad hoc” Teacher cover arrangements that had applied to the Complainant’s classes in previous years were presented.

The School had a very good record of granting Career Breaks to Teachers, including the Complainant.  No one could imply that the School had a Malign or indeed Indirect policy of Discrimination in this area.

Mr Mc Greal BL summarised the case as simply one where an employer, for good operational reasons, cannot facilitate a Career Break. There was no suggestion of any malign Discrimination or other motives at variance with the Employment Equality Act,1998.  

3:1        Legal Issues

Section 6(1) of the Employment Equality Act ,1998 defines Discrimination as follows.

Discrimination for the purposes of this Act.

6.—(1) For the purposes of this Act and without prejudice to its provisions relating to discrimination occurring in particular circumstances discrimination shall be taken to occur where—

(a) a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as the "discriminatory grounds") which—

(i) exists,

(ii) existed but no longer exists,

(iii) may exist in the future, or

(iv) is imputed to the person concerned,

Section 85 A  the Burden of Proof provides as follows

Burden of proof.

85A.—(1) Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a Complainant from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination in relation to him or her, it is for the Respondent to prove the contrary.

(2) This section is without prejudice to any other enactment or rule of law in relation to the burden of proof in any proceedings which may be more favourable to a Complainant.

(3) Where, in any proceedings arising from a reference of a matter by the Authority to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission] under section 85(1), facts are established by or on behalf of the Authority from which it may be presumed that an action or a failure mentioned in a paragraph of that provision has occurred, it is for the Respondent to prove the contrary.

(4) In this section "discrimination" includes—

(a) indirect discrimination,

(b) victimisation,

(c) harassment or sexual harassment,

(d) the inclusion in a collective agreement to which section 9 applies of a provision which, by virtue of that section, is null and void.

Comprehensive Legal submissions were made by the Complaint in relation to this latter, Burden of Proof, point.

3:2        Discussion / Consideration of Evidence -Oral Testimony & Written Submissions.

The Rules of Natural Justice are paramount.

Nonetheless all cases primarily rest on the evidence in Oral Testimony presented at the Oral Hearing supported by the Written Submissions.

The key witnesses here were the School Principal Mr C, supported by Mr Ch, a Deputy Principal and the Complainant.

It was clear from the Complainant Oral Testimony that the absolutely key issue was the alleged extreme difficulties in securing proper Childcare in the provincial Town involved. In almost mirror image was the alleged difficulty of the Principal in securing a suitable replacement “cover” Teacher for a Maths Teacher of the accepted high calibre of the Complainant.

Operationally the Career Break could not be extended by the School in this context.

From a Natural Justice point of view the case was well debated in meetings and e mail correspondence between the Parties, including the professional assistance of the ASTI on the Complainant’s behalf. The Board of Management considered the case on Appeal. Proper Legal procedures appeared to have been followed.

Career Breaks, as governed by Department of Education circular 54/2019, are not a Statutory Right but are subject to local management discretion in the light of particular local circumstances.

From a WRC Adjudication point of view, it was very hard to see a basis for a Complaint of Discrimination on Gender or Family Status Grounds against the Respondent. Career Breaks are regularly granted when it is operationally possible to do so. The Oral testimony from the Principal and the Assistant Principal (given under sworn Oath) was clear on this point.

Naturally these local decisions have to be seen to be “Reasonable” and “not irrational”. The rules of Natural Justice have to be observed. Care has to be taken with regard to Indirect or possibly inadvertent Discrimination.

In this Natural Justice context Respondent reliance was placed on detailed listings of substitute / Educational placement / temporary staff use by the School to cover the Complainant. The School refusal decision could not be seen as Irrational or capriciously Unreasonable in this context.

The Complainant referenced the possible availability of other more junior Teachers and the “turn over” of junior Teachers seeking permanent positions. These were areas, the Complainant argued, that could have been explored more comprehensively to facilitate her extension application. The Respondent pointed out that they had a staff of 141 personnel some 100+ being qualified Teachers. With all possible sympathy to the Complainant, she was a very capable higher Level maths teacher and could not simply be replaced the view of the School Management, by junior or new entrants to the Teaching Staff.

Regarding an Indirect Discrimination argument, the School involved had a good record of granting Career Breaks. The Complainant herself had benefited from this practice. There was no evidence of a Malign view of Career Breaks. It was hard to see a distinct pattern that might lead to a view that a practice of Indirect Discrimination existed at the School.

The suggestion was made by the ASTI that as Ladies/Mothers, still in 2026, are generally accepted as carrying the major part of Parental care refusing a Career Break extension to a Mother is Indirect Discrimination on Family Status /Gender Grounds.  In this case the refusal of the extension was based on School Operational Grounds. Career Breaks had already been granted to the Complainant in previous years.

The Comparators cited, Ms S and Ms B, are both Female without it appeared childcare issues in 2025. Both were granted Career Breaks. In discussion Mr Mc Greal BL question their applicability, being considerably more junior and less experienced, as proper Comparators to an experienced Teacher such as the Complainant.

From the sworn testimony of the Principal, the Adjudicator did not see the Parental issue of the Complainant being the key almost malign “negative” decision prompting cause in 2025. Previous Leaves had been granted to the Complainant on clearly Childcare grounds.

The alleged negative educational impact of the absence of the Complainant was demonstrated in evidence from Class cover rosters. Classes were being tended to by a variety of Educational Placement Students and other Part Timers. There was no suggestion that these other Teachers were less than competent but the “continuity” of Teacher /Student interaction particularly at higher Leaving Cert level is a legitimate Rational an objective concern of a School as was pointed out by the Principal.

Section 22(1)(b) of the Act is worth noting here. Although referring to Indirect Discrimination and not conceding the Respondent case in any way, the underlined sentiments in (1) B are illustrative.

22.—(1) (a) Indirect discrimination occurs where an apparently neutral provision would put persons of a particular gender (being As or Bs) at a particular disadvantage in respect of any matter other than remuneration compared with other employees of their employer.

 (b) Where paragraph (a) applies, the employer shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as discriminating against each of the persons referred to (including A or B), unless the provision is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.

(Underlining by Adjudication Officer)

From the oral testimony of the Respondent Parties and their Written Submissions the actions appeared to have been

“objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary”.

The Oral Testimony from the Complainant demonstrated a very capable professional Teacher. There was no doubt, from the Principal, that she is a major asset to the School. Finding a suitable replacement, on a Career Break cover basis, proved impossible.

Operationally therefore, a further Career Break in this context was something, in the view of the Principal and the Board of Management on Appeal, that was not possible.

3:3        Summary adjudication view

In summary there was much emotion in this case. All parties were sympathetic to the Complainant and her childcare issues. However, the Employer/School had a legitimate operational basis for refusing an extension to the Career Break.

Regrettably the Adjudication View has to be that no Discrimination as defined in the Act took place on the Gender or Family Status ground

As a closing observation, almost all commentators across the Union/Employer sphere, when commenting on Childcare issues, agree that the Employment Equality Act,1998 cannot be made into something it is not. 

It is argued that it is not the appropriate vehicle, to oversee proper Rational and Natural Justice observed Employer/Union employment decisions in the context of the well-known broader Societal Problesm of a childcare shortage issue in the current Ireland.

Employment Equality, Career Breaks,