Latest in Employment Law>Case Law>Synergy Security Solutions Limited v Anna Dudek [2018]
Synergy Security Solutions Limited v Anna Dudek [2018]
Published on: 25/10/2018
Issues Covered: Dismissal Discrimination
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Legal Island
Legal Island
{}
Background

This case involved a complaint that the complainant had been unfairly dismissed. She had been employed for a period of approximately 10 weeks before her dismissal and alleged that she been dismissed on the grounds of being pregnant.

The respondent company stated that the reason for the dismissal was that the complainant was not an appropriate fit with the organisation and that she had not reacted positively to the instructions and coaching provided. They submitted that none of the personnel involved in the decision to dismiss her had knowledge, prior to her dismissal, that she was pregnant and that the protections of the Act cannot apply to her.

The complainant submitted that she had not advised the respondent of her pregnancy prior to her dismissal but as she was seven months pregnant at the time it was obvious that she was pregnant. She also submitted that she had advised a colleague of her pregnancy one week before her dismissal and that the respondent should have known of her pregnancy as a result. She alleged that there were no significant performance issues raised with her prior to dismissal and that she had not received any negative feedback.

The Court stated that if reason for the dismissal was owing to the complainant's pregnancy, then the dismissal would automatically be unfair. The Court had to determine whether the pregnancy was the reason for the dismissal. The Court noted that the complainant confirmed to them that she hid her pregnancy from the respondent and that the colleague she had told was not a manager or a person with a function in relation to her employment. The Court also noted that despite the complainant's assertion that the respondent was aware of her pregnancy, she offered no evidence to the Court to support this assertion.

Accordingly, the Court stated that they could not elevate the complainant's assertion to the status of evidence. The Court held that as the dismissal was not by reason of pregnancy it was not up to them to consider the fairness or otherwise of the decision to dismiss, or to consider the procedures employed by the respondent in arriving at their decision. The Court found that on the balance of probability the respondent did not know that the complainant was pregnant and dismissed the appeal.
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2018/October/UDD1853.html

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 25/10/2018
Q&A
Legal Island’s LMS, licensed to you Imagine your staff having 24/7 access to a centralised training platform, tailored to your organisation’s brand and staff training needs, with unlimited users. Learn more →