Medical secretary ‘left in limbo’ wins €20k over victimisation

A medical secretary who quit after nearly a year left “in limbo” waiting on a return to work from maternity leave has secured €20,000 over being penalised for standing up for her rights as a pregnant worker.

After hearing a secret tape made by the worker of a phone call with her former manager which had “deteriorated into a frank exchange of views” a Workplace Relations Commission adjudicator concluded that a note taken by the manager had been “biased” against the employee.

Ruling on a complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1998 by Veronica Makunike against the Mary Street Medical Centre, the tribunal found she was too late to have earlier claims of discrimination considered, but that she had been victimised.

Ms Makunike took sick leave when the Covid-19 pandemic hit on medical advice as the practice could not arrange for remote working, she said.

Student accommodation: A market plagued by bed shortages, rising rents and 51-week leases

---

An attempt to buy the next election with a giveaway budget would be a gross miscalculation

---

The outlook for interest rate cuts is changing - so should Irish borrowers be worried?

---

IDA gives Intel €30m in aid package

---

She had challenged her employer, citing the Maternity Protection Act after she looked to go back to work in November 2021 but was offered only half her previous hours when she said she could no longer work Fridays, the tribunal was told.

She also later discovered other staff had got a Christmas bonus, while she had got none, she said, and wrote to her employer stating: “The bonus issue is a matter of principle and my understanding is that everyone received the bonus except myself, which I feel is discrimination against me while on protected maternity leave.”

There were further delays to her return to work due to illness – with an occupational health assessor urging supportive counselling as part of a return plan, which was agreed to in late March that year. However, her own doctor “was not satisfied” with her going back to work yet, she said.

She said that when she spoke to one of the partners in the practice by phone on 2nd April, 2021, the partner made it “very clear” that Ms Makunike had been expected back at work, while she had been hoping to attend counselling sessions first.

Unknown to her employer, the complainant had taped the phone call – and when notes of the conversation were produced which, in her view, “did not reflect the discussion”, she told the clinic she had the tape.

Adjudicator Seamus Clinton noted that the recording, which was opened to the tribunal by the complainant, showed the call “deteriorated into a frank exchange of views”.

Everything You Always Wanted to Know About the Auto-Enrolment Pension Scheme * (*But Were Afraid to Ask)

Listen | 33:56

The partner’s later notes to the other doctors in charge of the practice referred to “rebuilding” Ms Makunike’s “perceived confidence issues”, along with a statement that the complainant’s “perceived work-related stress . . . was related to Covid concerns in her pregnancy”.

In evidence, the partner involved in the call said she had been “frustrated” that Ms Makunike had submitted a further doctor’s certificate despite a positive return-to-work meeting the month before.

“The expectation was that the complainant would be returning with the supports in place,” the partner said.

A dispute over the accuracy of the manager’s notes continued for some time, with the complainant seeking outside mediation and an independent review of the tape as part of the return-to-work process. Neither was facilitated, Ms Makunike said, even though the mediator had been recommended by occupational health in December 2021.

The complainant ultimately resigned from her position in May 2022.

The partner said told the WRC she didn’t engage a mediator because she wanted to “de-escalate the stress” and bringing in an outside party was “not the preferred option”

In his decision, Mr Clinton wrote that Ms Makunike was too late in lodging her complaint for him to make a ruling on allegations of discrimination prior to April 2021 around remote work, the hours given on her return, and the Christmas bonus issue in 2021.

He said the manager had made “an acceptance of some frustration on her part” because Ms Makunike “did not return to work” after an earlier meeting.

“The narrative was biased against the complainant as ‘Covid’ was not mentioned during the call,” wrote Mr Clinton, who added that it was “only one example of the note not being reflective of the discussion”.

He said it indicated to him that the employer was “quoting selectively” from the occupational health report to link matters back to Ms Makunike taking early maternity leave.

He concluded that the phone call and the later “reluctance” to engage a mediator were “adverse treatment” in “reaction to the earlier protected acts” and found Ms Makunike had been penalised.

Fixing compensation, Mr Clinton noted that the complainant “was denied any potential return to work and was in limbo for almost a year” and ultimately decided to resign as there was “no realistic option of a return to work”.

He ordered the clinic to pay her €20,000 in compensation, a sum worth nearly 18 months’ salary.