The complainant began working with the respondent as a cleaner in 2006.  She considered him a mentor and after encouragement she completed a Diploma in Supervisory Management in GMIT and was made supervisor in her employment in 2007.  In October 2010 she told him she was pregnant and was shocked at his response, telling her, among other things, that she would only work a three day week.  She alleged this was at the respondent’s insistence and the respondent alleged it was at her request.  After 27 December she was not rostered at all.  Similarly there was contradictory evidence as to how she was ultimately placed on health and safety leave.

A preliminary issue was raised in that the respondent’s personal name was quoted on the complaint form and the @Resonance case was quoted (EED0311) but the Equality Officer was guided by High Court in O’Higgins v UCD & Labour Court [2013 No. 21 MCA]  and held that the respondent was on notice of the claim and it was properly before her.

In the first place, the Equality Officer found the documentary evidence incontrovertible that the complainant’s terms and conditions of employment were reduced from full time to part time and from permanent to fixed term,  after she informed him of her pregnancy.  She did not accept “the respondent’s contention that the reduced hours were at the complainant’s initiate or that there was any mutuality in the arrangement”.

In respect of the allegation of victimisation, the Equality Officer stated “Calling a meeting of employees to inform them that Ms. Drabik had initiated legal proceedings was not prudent by Mr. Zandi.  I accept the complainant’s evidene that at this meeting other employees were encouraged to make a complaint of bullying against M. Drabik.  This is victimisation. It is to the credit of the other employees that they did not.”

The complainant was awarded €22,000 for discrimination in relation to conditions of employment leading to dismissal and €11,000 for victimisation.

Why is this case of interest?

• The award was made from a total potential award of 4 years pay as victimisation is entitled to its own award of up to two years salary. Victimisation claims are always treated seriously by the Tribunal as victimisation, if upheld, is seen as penalisation of an employee for exercising their statutory rights.  (See also DEC-E2013-193 below)
• Recent equality caselaw has followed that of the EAT in respect of constructive dismissal in that complainants are expected to have exhausted all internal procedures.  No consideration of this is included in this  Decision so it is unclear whether the employer had the relevant policies.