WRC awards €50,000 to new mum denied part-time hours after having baby
The ruling came after a manager for the company, Net Smart Security Ltd, told an equality hearing it had "no employees working part-time" - but accepted under cross-examination that two daughters of the CEO did part-time hours there.
In a decision published today, the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) upheld a complaint of unlawful discrimination on the grounds of gender and family status against Net Smart Security on foot of a complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1998 by Lisa McGrath.
Ms McGrath, an accounts administrator with the firm since August 2022 earning a base salary of €24,000 a year plus a bonus, took maternity leave in January 2024, followed by parental leave up to mid-September that year, when she asked to go back to work part-time.
Ms McGrath gave evidence she had to tell the company's account's manager Elaine Barton she was pregnant when Ms Barton initially refused to release her from work an hour early for a doctor's appointment.
Ms Barton "displayed a shocked reaction" and proceeded to make "comments about [the complainant] still living at home", the complainant said in evidence.
She said that from that point onward there was a "major change" in her relationship with Ms Barton, who was her line manager, and that she received "sarcastic comments" and felt "belittled".
Her evidence was that she was marked absent on days she had appointments at the Coombe maternity hospital, with a knock-on deduction being made to her bonus pay.
She said under cross-examination that she was aware another pregnant employee had been paid for her ante-natal appointments.
When her parental leave expired last September, she said she arranged to meet Ms Barton to discuss part-time work, and said she "could do mornings" but was "open to any other arrangements".
Ms McGrath said her manager's response was to state she had been anticipating the request and to remark: "Everyone has kids".
Giving evidence, Ms Barton said Ms McGrath was "treated in the same manner as when she started working" after her pregnancy. She said she was "sympathetic" towards Ms McGrath when they met on 12 September last year and that it was not in her character to belittle anyone.
However, she said she had told the claimant that part-time work "could only be considered on medical grounds", and that she would have to "push" for it with the CEO.
Her evidence was that "part-time was never done in the office" because the company had "a large customer base" and "part-time work would not work in the finance or sales office".
Under cross-examination from the complainant's solicitor, Setanta Landers, Ms Barton confirmed that the CEO Derek Ramsay was her brother.
When counsel put it to her that she would be "perceived to carry weight in relation to the business", Ms Barton said she did not.
An accounts supervisor, Shauna Kavanagh, also gave evidence that there were "no employees working part-time".
Mr Landers asked her about two named female employees who worked in the office occasionally.
Ms Kavanagh said they were the CEO's daughters and confirmed, upon being questioned further, that they worked on a part-time basis.
Anna Rosa Raso, from human resources firm ESA Consultants, appearing for the employer, said Ms McGrath's complaints were denied by the firm. The complainant's request to come back part-time "was considered and lawfully declined on operational grounds".
Adjudication officer John Harraghy wrote the company witnesses displayed a "lack of knowledge in relation to the protection afforded to pregnant employees".
There was "no credible explanation" for the lack of a risk assessment, paid leave for maternity appointments and for "meaningful and tangible efforts" at reasonable accommodation for Ms McGrath, he wrote.
"It is also a fact that the respondent denied that there was any part-time work given to any employee. However, relatives of the CEO were afforded this opportunity and it was not even considered for the complainant," Mr Harraghy added.
He wrote that the employer had been "unable to justify why a part-time employee would not be of assistance" in Ms McGrath's former job, given she had not been replaced at the time of the hearing in July.
Mr Harraghy ruled that Ms McGrath was discriminated against on the grounds of gender and family status, and awarded her €50,000 in compensation.
He awarded the sum - just short of the maximum jurisdiction allowed of double Ms McGrath's annual earnings of €26,000 - in part "to ensure there is a dissuasive effect with regard to the employer".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
an hour ago
- Irish Examiner
'Preferred bidder' found for MV Matthew berthed in Cork Harbour
Drug trafficking cargo ship the MV Matthew has cost the State almost €10m in maintenance, crewing, and berthing fees since it was intercepted in 2023. A buyer has been found for the drug trafficking ship, and the Revenue Commissioners are engaging with Panamanian authorities to ensure legal and regulatory compliance. The MV Matthew, a Panamanian-registered ship, was at the centre of the largest cocaine seizure in the history of the State. Eight men were sentenced to a combined 129 years in prison in July for their role in the drug trafficking operation in which some €157m worth of cocaine was seized. The MV Matthew, owned by a Dubai-based company, was boarded at gunpoint by Ireland's elite army ranger wing in rough seas off the Cork coast in September 2023. Eight men from the 21-person crew were ultimately charged with drug trafficking offences. The ship, which has since been berthed in Cork Harbour, has been costing an average of €120,000 each week to maintain. However, Revenue has confirmed that 'a preferred bidder has been identified' for the MV Matthew. 'Revenue is engaging with the Panamanian authorities to ensure compliance with maritime legislation and regulations that govern the disposal of the MV Matthew, and has received confirmation from them that it is receiving attention,' a statement said. 'Revenue hopes to have these matters finalised shortly. Revenue is required to ensure that all regulations and legal obligations are fully complied with throughout the disposal and removal process.' 'Far too long' Berthing the ship, which includes costs for unberthing and moving the vessel when necessary, has cost €2,187,950. Maintenance of the ship — including fuel costs, waste removal, and repairs — has cost €3,784,050. Crewing has cost 3,762,054. More than €9,734,054 has been spent on the ship in total. These costs were paid by the Revenue Commissioners to maintain and manage the MV Matthew from September 2023 to the end of July 2025. Fianna Fáil TD for Cork South Central Séamus McGrath said that the disposal of the MV Matthew is taking 'far too long'. 'The cost of keeping it on a weekly basis is extremely high,' he said. 'I doubt very much at this stage if the State will actually be any net better off as a result of the sale, given the amount of cost that was incurred in terms of the storage and maintenance of the ship.' The ship had been maintained to allow access for defence legal teams as it was at the centre of a major criminal trial. The Special Criminal Court authorised its release on December 2. It was only possible to dispose of the ship from that date. Mr McGrath said that it should have been ready for sale as soon as it was released by the courts. He said he has raised his concerns both with Revenue and with the Public Accounts Committee, and has requested further information on the sales process.
RTÉ News
7 hours ago
- RTÉ News
Sommelier left short on wages "never heard from Mr Shanahan again"
The sommelier at famed Dublin restaurant Shanahan's on the Green has said he "never heard from Mr Shanahan again" after the owner said he was leaving for America last year with a promise to "resolve matters" when staff went unpaid. The worker, wine manager Cormac Thunder, was giving evidence to the Workplace Relations Commission earlier this year in a claim for over €4,272.24 in wages and notice not paid out to him when the restaurant shut abruptly last October. Mr Thunder's claim under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 against JMS International Holdings, trading as Shanahan's on the Green, was upheld in a WRC decision published this week, bringing the total due to eight former staff of the high-end restaurant to nearly €40,000. Mr Thunder told a hearing in May he had been at Shanahan's for some thirteen and a half years when he and all his colleagues got an email titled "Shocked! Stunned!" from his employer. A copy of a letter attached to the email stated that the Revenue Commissioners had frozen the company's bank accounts "due to outstanding tax payment obligations". The business was "ceasing until further notice" and the company's owner John Shanahan was to "travel to the US to resolve matters", the email stated. "The complainant stated that he never heard from Mr Shanahan again," adjudication officer Elizabeth Spelman recorded in her decision. Mr Thunder told the Commission he tried to call Mr Shanahan twice but got no response. Ms Spelman noted that she too had attempted to phone Mr Shanahan twice on the day of the hearing, as there was no appearance on behalf of the restaurant when Mr Thunder's case was called on for hearing. "There was an engaged/disconnected ring tone," she wrote. She concluded that the respondent was properly on notice, and pressed on to hear the case that day without the respondent after allowing a for a grace period. She noted Mr Thunder's evidence that on top of his basic gross pay of €102 a shift, he was also earning an average of around €700 a week in gratuities and service charges, adding up to a gross weekly average earnings of €1,212.74. Mr Thunder had told the WRC he was "not paid the amount that was properly payable to him for his last week of employment," and also received no notice of the termination of his employment, Ms Spelman wrote. Ms Spelman wrote that while the Payment of Wages Act permitted a worker to recover unpaid tips or gratuities, they did not fall into the definition of wages, so had to be excluded for the purpose of calculating Mr Thunder's notice pay. She awarded Mr Thunder €3,060 under the Payment of Wages Act, based on six weeks at €510 a week, and further €1,212.74 for the non-payment in respect of his last week on the job. Mr Thunder and his former colleagues, waiters Paul Harte, Luke Caragher and David Byrne; chef Piotr Fraszczyk, assistant manager Angelo Lamberti, receptionist Eleanor Donovan, and company book-keeper Katherine Friel, are collectively due €39,727.17 on foot of WRC decisions since the closure.
The Journal
7 hours ago
- The Journal
Financial executive awarded €22k over unfair dismissal for posting sexually explicit messages
A FINANCIAL SERVICES executive who was fired after posting sexually explicit messages from the mobile phones of two female colleagues has been awarded €22,500 in compensation for unfair dismissal. The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) ruled that the procedures used to dismiss the operation's manager were flawed and unfair 'from beginning to end.' The WRC found that the company's conclusion that the manager's conduct was 'highly severe sexual harassment' was 'excessive' and 'not proportional.' It heard evidence that the manager had taken the phone from the desk of a colleague – known as Employee A – on January 30, 2024 and sent a sexually explicit WhatsApp message to her husband. The WRC ruled that the identities of the parties should not be disclosed due to the potential collateral damage to the company and its staff. The manager owned up to sending the message as a joke after the woman discovered it on her phone. She asked the company's chief executive for a meeting to discuss what had happened as both she and her husband had found the message 'vulgar and disgusting' and was worried other content from her phone had been accessed. The WRC heard the operations manager was suspended after a meeting on February 6, 2024 after she had submitted a formal complaint. Another female colleague, known as Employee B. who attended the meeting said afterwards: 'I can't believe this is happening again.' The company's chief executive told the WRC that he had forgotten there had been a previous incident in September 2022 when the manager had accessed Employee B's phone while she was on holidays. Employee B had left her phone at work to allow the chief executive to access a banking app to authorise transactions. Employee B noticed two sexually offensive messages appeared to have been posted by her on one of her social media accounts as well as a message to one of her friends saying 'Hi, how are you?' The WRC heard the manager admitted he had posted the messages as a joke when Employee B contacted him to express concern that her phone had been hacked. Employee B said that her husband and father who were on holiday with her were also disgusted by the messages. While Employee B did not accept it was a joke, she acknowledged she did not take the matter further at the time. The WRC heard that the manager admitted he had done 'two stupid things' to an external investigator hired to examine the complaints. However, he claimed Employee B was conflicted by having used what she heard at the meeting on February 6, 2024 to make her own complaint and its inclusion was unfair. 'In the heat of the moment, I made two bad choices' he told an appeals committee and claimed his actions were in line with 'jokes or stuff' between staff. He claimed the use of the term 'sexual harassment' was grossly untrue and said he felt like 'the fall guy' for widespread sexual comments and innuendo between staff. Advertisement The manager – who was regarded as 'number 2' in the company – asked the appeals committee not to let 'two moments of madness' define him when he had been portrayed as 'some kind of evil predator.' His counsel, Michael Kinsey BL, claimed the process used to dismiss him was 'pre-judged, biased and procedurally flawed.' However, counsel for the financial services company, Lauren Tennyson BL, maintained the manager had been dismissed for gross misconduct due to findings of sexual harassment. Ms Tennyson said the sanction of dismissal was fair and proportionate and 'an inherently reasonable decision.' In her ruling, WRC adjudication officer, Catherine Byrne, observed that the manager had submitted no evidence to support his contention that sexual banter was commonplace among staff. Ms Byrne acknowledged that any reasonable employer would regard the manager's action in relation to Employee A as 'grossly inoffensive and irresponsible.' The WRC adjudicator said Employee B had dealt with the manager's conduct with maturity and forbearance over his use of her phone and had put him on notice that she would not tolerate such action in future. Ms Byrne said it was reasonable for the two women to have been angry, embarrassed, shocked and disappointed by his conduct which she agreed had met the definition of sexual harassment under the company's policy. 'He made unwanted sexual remarks which were offensive and degrading and which had no regard for the dignity of his colleagues,' she observed. However, Ms Byrne, she claimed the finding that what happened was a high severity of sexual harassment was 'too extreme.' She stressed that she did not wish to minimise the impact of the two incidents. Ms Byrne pointed out that the incident with Employee B was originally considered 'done and dusted.' She also observed that the chief executive had not taken any action to address the manager's conduct back in September 2022. Ms Byrne said it was difficult to understand why the chief executive had not 'at the very least' had a conversation with the complainant at the time about his conduct even in the absence of a formal complaint. 'His failure to do so lends some credibility to the complainant's assertion that there was a culture of doing nothing about unacceptable sexual banter,' she remarked. Ms Byrne claimed the retrieval of the earlier incident to bolster the case for dismissal was unfair, given the second incident was sufficiently serious to warrant consideration on its own. Ms Byrne said it was not open to the independent investigator to reach a conclusion regarding the scale of the offence or the severity of the sexual harassment. She claimed the disciplinary panel had relied on the investigator's opinion and failed in their duty to consider the manager's defence, while he also had not been allowed to appeal the investigation report. 'It is my view that a reasonable, prudent and wise employer may have reached a different decision and the complainant may have gone on to make a positive contribution to the organisation,' said Ms Byrne. Although the manager suffered €74,500 in lost earnings over the two years following his dismissal, the WRC limited the award of compensation to €22,5500 – representing 30% of the total – as he had contributed significantly to the decision to dismiss him. Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal
