A hotel group accused of sacking a manager 11 days after she suffered a miscarriage has told a tribunal it is “a substantial stretch” for her to argue she was shielded by workplace maternity protection law.
“At the time of the dismissal, [she] was not, in fact, pregnant,” the company’s legal representative told the Workplace Relations Commission on Monday.
The employee’s claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 is against Fadeside Ltd, part of the Connacht Hospitality Group, which operates a Galway city hotel and bar where the complainant was a manager.
The parties agree the claimant was not in the job for a full 12 months when she was dismissed.
Leaving Cert: Live reaction to ‘challenging’ English paper one
Richard Satchwell showed ‘Tina’s dog in death more respect’, sister says as murderer sentenced to life
After Dolly Alderton’s party, I decided to ditch the impostor syndrome that’s dogged me
Woman who died in Connemara house fire named as former US death row inmate Sunny Jacobs
The Unfair Dismissals Act of 1977 ordinarily only covers workers who have been in their employment for one year. There is a dispute over whether the employee could benefit from the waiver of this minimum service requirement under maternity protection laws.
The employer’s solicitor, Pat Mullins of O’Flynn Exhams LLP, said the company took “substantial” issue with the facts presented in the complainant’s legal submission.
He expressed condolences on his and his client’s behalf for the woman’s miscarriage. “I appreciate it’s very difficult. I’m very sorry you had a miscarriage,” he said, adding that the legal issue relating to pregnancy must be dealt with.
The solicitor said previous cases concerning exceptions to the 12-month norm related to complainants who were pregnant.
“At the time of the dismissal, the complainant was not, in fact, pregnant, and I say it is a substantial stretch of the interpretation of that part of the Act to state that it includes a previous miscarriage,” Mr Mullins said. “It’ll be our case that everything was performance-related, and that was the reason for the termination,” he said.
Counsel for the worker, Ian FitzHarris, said his client had to go off work sick after she suffered a miscarriage on September 29th, 2023.
“She didn’t realise she was pregnant,” Mr FitzHarris said. He said her employer had a change in attitude towards his client as a result and a view was taken that she “would become pregnant again and go on maternity leave”.
He submitted that, having returned to work after a few days’ sick leave, his client was handed a notice of dismissal “11 days after she suffered a miscarriage”. His client only worked five days between her return from sick leave and her dismissal, he added.
“The phrase in the legislation is ‘pregnancy-related matters’,” he said.
The hearing did not progress into evidence due to the impasse over which side bears the initial burden of proof.
Mr Mullins submitted that managers at the hospitality group had held “a number of meetings” with the employee, who was general manager of a hotel and bar premises in Galway city for an 11-month period between 2022 and 2023.
He said the employee was “having an issue with people-management”, marketing matters and attendance, which was discussed during her probation period.
He said there were “serious performance issues raised” with the claimant.
A manager and the company’s HR head will both deny in their evidence that the complainant told them she had suffered a miscarriage at the time, Mr Mullins added.
“The respondent will say every opportunity was given to the complainant by way of help and support,” Mr Mullins said. Her performance on the job was “not up to scratch” and it had “absolutely nothing to do with her miscarriage”, he added.
Mr FitzHarris submitted further that the date of termination given to his client was “one day short of a calendar year” from the initial letter offering her the €60,000-a-year job.
“The reason that date was chosen was to escape the Unfair Dismissals Act,” Mr FitzHarris submitted.
After hearing legal submissions and conducting some other business, adjudicator Louise Boyle adjourned the case.
