The Complainant had been employed as the Respondent's Credit Controller from the 2nd of December 2019 until her employment was terminated on the 11th of May 2020 as she could not return to the workplace on an eight-hour day basis due to childcare difficulties.

The Complainant had relied on a creche which had closed as a direct result of the impact of Covid-19. The Respondent was aware that the Complainant had no alternative childcare and when the creche closed, the Complainant proposed other options such as additional after-hours work, parental leave and lay off so they could advertise the position on a temporary basis. However, none of these options were accepted by the Respondent.

The Complainant received an e-mail from the Respondent on the 11th of May 2020 which stated,"your employmnet should be terminated due ot the fact that you can not fufil the duties and responsibilities required for the role of Credit Controller, in line with the need of our business". The Complainant maintained that she had been dismissed unfairly as she could not return to the office due to her difficulties with childcare and this was something that the Respondent was very much aware of.

The Complainant submitted that the Respondent pressurised her to consider resigning and she had made every effort to fulfil the role during the time she was unable to return to the office, but they chose to be difficult and dismissed her.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing. They contacted the WRC to say that they ‘did not wish to engage’ with the process.

The Adjudication Officer in this case noted that the Respondent seemed to have lost something in translation in the move from the old to the new nomenclature in terms of its understanding of its corporate obligations to its employees.  The Adjudication Officer considered it difficult to understand the urgent necessity to have the Complainant attend physically in the workplace. Working from home is now commonplace in a very large range of employments.

In this case, the Adjudication Officer noted the evidence of the Complainant having made extensive efforts to persuade her employer to accommodate her. Despite initially doing so, this did not last long. She faced continuing attitudes that lay somewhere between unhelpful and hostile.  The case law is clear on the obligations falling on an employer to examine all possibilities for accommodating the employee before doing so. While this requirement of fairness has well-established roots in legal concepts related to natural justice, it is also little more than elementary courtesy.

The Adjudication Officer recommended that the Respondent pay the Complainant €10,000.00.  The Adjudication Officer also recommended the Respondent take steps to establish a transparent and effective Remote Working policy to address future applications for such options.
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2021/july/adj-00028468.html