Background:

The Complainant worked as an office and facilities manager for the Respondent, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, from 2012 to December 2020. The Complainant was on maternity leave when the COVID-19 pandemic began in March 2020. When the Complainant returned from maternity leave in September 2020, she was advised that she would now share the same role, job title and job level with another colleague who was hired to cover her maternity leave. The Complainant alleged the continuous engagement of this additional employee after her return resulted in a diminution of her standing within the company and a reduction in the quantity and nature of the work she did on a day-to-day basis. As a result of this, the Complainant alleged she had not returned to the role which she had prior to her maternity leave, and that this amounted to gender-based discrimination.

The Respondent refuted all the allegations made by the Complainant and attempted to address and accommodate the Complainant as best as they could. The Respondent had decided to re-organise its operations in the wake of COVID-19, which meant in part a need to change the nature of the role of Office and Facilities Manager in light of remote and flexible working arrangements in place. The colleague whom the Complainant was working with was retained to support the Respondent’s COVID-19 response, and the Complainant’s role was in the process of being upgraded to a more global and strategic position. The Respondent attempted to address the Complainant’s concerns fully, and when the Complainant resigned, the Respondent asked her to reconsider and to instead utilise the available formal grievance procedures, which she declined to do.

Outcome:

TheLabour Court found the Complainant was not subject to “adverse treatment” by the Respondent, and as a result, had not raised a prima facie case for the Respondent to defend. The Court found that it was not their role to dictate to the Respondent how it operated its business, so long as it is lawful. It found that it was not the responsibility of an employer to “freeze” all duties and responsibilities for an employee on maternity leave to ensure they return to precisely the same job. The Court found changes to a role are permissible, so long as those changes do not constitute less favourable treatment. In this case, those changes did not amount to less favourable treatment.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

An employee’s return to work from maternity leave can be difficult, particularly if business needs have changed during that period. Employers may change the scope of a role, adding or removing responsibilities as required, as long as the employee’s terms and conditions remain the same and that these changes do not constitute “less favourable treatment” or are a consequence of real or assumed changes in capability related to one’s status as a mother.

The full case is here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2022/november/eda2230.html