2 days ago
WRC awards €50,000 to new mum denied part-time hours after having baby
A security firm which refused to let a new mother come back to work on part-time hours after having her first baby has been ordered to pay her €50,000 in compensation for discrimination.
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".
