This month, we have gathered three stand-out cases from the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) which demonstrate the importance of robust policies, fair procedures, and compliance with employment legislation.
Take a look at the latest headlines below.
Maternity discrimination
Summary: A dental surgery assistant has been awarded €10,000 by the WRC after her working hours were cut while she was pregnant.
Upon returning a signed copy of a new employment contract, which granted an 18-hour working week, the employee disclosed to her employer that she was pregnant. Just eight days later, the employer proposed reducing her contract to 12 hours a week.
During the WRC adjudication, the business stated that they were experiencing financial difficulties and that all staff had been told their hours may be cut. The WRC adjudicator, however, said that the time between the disclosure of pregnancy and the change to the employee’s hours could not be ignored and awarded €10,000 in compensation under the Employment Equality Act 1998.
Key takeaways: Even if a business is experiencing financial difficulties or making changes that impact all employees, employers should ensure that decisions regarding pregnant employees, or employees on maternity leave, are made with care.
Employers should ensure that all decisions are reasonable and justifiable, and that the timing of these decisions is considered carefully.
Fired by text message
Summary: A lorry driver was awarded €18,000 in compensation, after a dispute arose around continuity of service and a text-message dismissal.
The dispute took place when a new business took over the butter and cheese delivery contract which the employee had been working on. When the handover took place, the employee was asked to transport fertiliser as well, which he said he could not do due to a pre-existing back injury. He then received a text message from his employer saying “I can’t work with you” and stating that he was refusing to do his work.
This case is an interesting example of TUPE regulations and continuous service, as the employer argued that the employee became a new recruit once the contract moved to another company. The WRC found, however, that the employee had been unfairly dismissed because his continuity of service transferred with him.
Key takeaways: Employers should be aware of their obligations under TUPE regulations when taking over a business or contract. In this case, the WRC found that a contractual clause around continuity of service was void because TUPE applied to the situation. Employers should always ensure that their employment contracts and HR policies are in line with relevant employment legislation, and that dismissals are handled with care.
No holiday pay
Summary: An employee has been awarded €5,230 after the WRC found that he was denied holiday pay and accrued annual leave entitlements.
After being dismissed by the business, the employee requested to take some annual leave. After being told by his employer that workers were not entitled to paid annual leave, the employee filed a complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997. The WRC upheld this complaint and awarded the employee the equivalent of eight weeks’ remuneration.
Key takeaways: The Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 sets out clear entitlements regarding annual leave, break times, and rest between shifts. Employers have a legal obligation to ensure that their employees receive these entitlements, or risk facing fines or penalties if they don’t.
