This case involves the dismissal of the complainant on the day after her maternity leave ended and while she was still on agreed annual leave. An apparent attempt to terminate the complainant’s employment during her maternity leave was withdrawn but she refused to attend a meeting with the Board of the Swimming Pool during that time. 

Although her dismissal had occurred immediately after the end of her maternity leave, the Tribunal relied on the ECJ case of Paquay v Société d'Architeches Hoet + Minne SPRL (Case C-460/06) to reverse the burden of proof against the respondent. This was on the basis that Article 10 of the Pregnancy Leave Directive "must be interpreted as prohibiting not only the notification of a decision to dismiss on the grounds of pregnancy and/or the birth of a child during the period of protection set down in paragraph 1 of the Article but also the taking of preparatory steps for such a decision before the end of that period."

The Tribunal accepted that the Swimming Pool was in financial difficulties but these did not appear to have worsened to such an extent that the dismissal of the complainant was necessary without further discussion with her, together with discussion of the position of those who had been brought in partly to cover for her responsibilities. If she had not been absent from the workplace on maternity leave, the position would have been handled differently. She was therefore awarded €17,500, being the equivalent of 6 months’ pay.

The case is a cautionary tale on the extent of the protective period enjoyed by workers on maternity leave, including decisions taken during the period but brought into effect after it is over, and the need to be careful not to attempt to take advantage of the worker’s absence during that period.

http://bit.ly/Mv94FE