Latest in Employment Law>Case Law>Western Brand Group Limited v Aneta Petrova [2018]
Western Brand Group Limited v Aneta Petrova [2018]
Published on: 26/04/2018
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Legal Island
Legal Island
{}
Background

This case involved a claim of unfair dismissal. The claimant had been dismissed by phone on the 29th December 2015 due to her unavailability to attend work. She subsequently received her P45 from the Appellant which stated that the 18th December 2015 was the date of cessation of her employment. The fact of her dismissal was not in dispute. The claimant alleged that she had been dismissed due to the fact she was pregnant and her pregnancy related illness.

The appellant claimed that the claimant had submitted a medical certificate of unfitness for work from the 17th to 28th of December 2015. They claimed that this certificate did not specify her illness. The claimant said that she subsequently received a medical certificate certifying her unavailability for work for a week from the 22nd December 2015 due to 'post d/c miscarriage'.  The appellant claimed that due to the Christmas holidays this certificate was not seen by the payroll department until the 29th of December 2015, despite being handed in to the Appellant's reception on the 23rd of December.

On the 29th December, the claimant rang the payroll administrator and was dismissed due to her unavailability to attend work. It was alleged that at this time the payroll administrator had not seen the relevant medical certificate. The appellant claimed that they were unaware of the complainant's pregnancy at the time of her dismissal and only discovered that the complainant had suffered a miscarriage following her dismissal. They advised that she could re-apply for her job when she returned to full health.

The appellant submitted that the complainant had been fairly dismissed for her unavailability for work. However, the payroll administrator stated in evidence that the staff member who instructed her to dismiss the complainant was fully aware of the pregnancy and the associated illness of the complainant. The Court, having heard the evidence before it, was satisfied that the appellant was aware, at the time of dismissal, that the complainant's illness was related to her pregnancy and miscarriage. The Court concluded that the dismissal was unfair as the operative reason for her dismissal was due to her absence through pregnancy related illness. The Court awarded the complainant the sum of €17,000 in compensation. This sum considered the lack of detailed evidence of the complainant's efforts to secure employment since her dismissal and the fact she was medically unfit to carry out her job from January to June of the year of her dismissal.

 http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2018/April/UDD1819.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 26/04/2018
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 →