Latest news with #maternityDiscrimination
Irish Times
3 days ago
- Business
- Irish Times
Coca-Cola ordered to pay €68,000 to marketing executive demoted on return from maternity leave
A marketing executive at Coca-Cola who said she was 'bullied' into taking a demotion from a management job to 'nearly a graduate position' when she got back to work after having a baby has won €68,000 for maternity discrimination. Lisa Deveney told the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) at a hearing last winter that she thought she was going to return to her old job as premium spirits marketing manager, which she had held since 2018, at the end of maternity leave in January 2024. She said she suffered an 'acute stress reaction' after her colleagues were told the employee brought in to cover her absence would be staying in her former role. Coca-Cola HBC Ireland Ltd has now been found in breach of the Employment Equality Act 1998 on foot of a complaint by Ms Deveney. READ MORE The company had denied that complaint, along with a further complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, which was not upheld by the tribunal. Ms Deveney's evidence was that she had been absent for one year and 21 days on the day she was to go back to work on 22nd January this year, owing to pregnancy-related health issues. It was her second period of maternity leave, she told the WRC. Bobby Healy on why Manna drone delivery could be the 'biggest technology company in the world for its space' Listen | 67:08 She said the first she was told that she would not be going back in as premium spirits marketing manager was at the end of a call the Friday before the week she was due back. 'I was a bit nervous about going back. There hadn't been anything set up,' Ms Deveney said. She said a manager, Mr A, told her: 'You won't be returning to your role. We're looking for you to return to a new role.' 'He didn't know the [job] title at the time. I thought at the time it sounded like a demotion,' Ms Deveney said, referring to concerns about the fact she would no longer be reporting to a manager at director level. 'He said it would be good experience,' Ms Deveney said. Her response was: 'Listen I'm not going to throw my toys out of the pram,' and that she asked for the job specification. 'Obviously, I'm pretty sideballed. I thought I was getting my job back,' she said. She said that Mr A told her they would sit down and discuss the position when she was back in the office on Monday, 22nd January. The complainant said she expected to see a job spec to review over the weekend, but that this was not forthcoming. Ms Deveney said the next time she and the manager spoke was at a wider team meeting at 3.30pm that same day. '[He] started the call and said it was brilliant that I was back, that I was taking the premium spirits role and moving to [the other] team.' 'I assumed it was going to be a conversation, not a done deal – obviously it was,' she said. 'There's a vast difference in experience,' she said of the new role description. 'Three years' experience, that could be nearly a graduate position – for me that's quite a junior position,' Ms Deveney said. She said she had to ask another colleague on the Tuesday to 'hold off' on sending an email to the new team, telling her that she was 'not accepting the position'. 'I felt I was bullied into taking a role,' she said. Mr A's evidence to the WRC was that the role change was a process he and the complainant 'were working through' prior to a formal offer being made. His evidence was that Ms Deveney was 'at no time ... asked to accept the position or to say that she wasn't interested'. He said she told him she would 'give it a go' and that he felt it was okay to move forward with it. He explained that he planned to meet with Ms Deveney about the role prior to making a formal offer, but was 'incredibly busy' the day she returned to work on Monday 22nd January. He said that he had outlined the role as a 'proposal' at the team meeting that day and that Ms Deveney had come to him afterwards stating that she was 'blindsided' and raising concerns about demotion. Mr A said he only became aware the following evening that the arrangement was drawing 'an emotional response'. Ms Deveney said she suffered a panic attack on the evening of Tuesday 23rd January and called in sick for the following day. She did not return to work prior to tendering her resignation in March, 2024, the tribunal was told. Cillian McGovern BL, instructed by Aaron McKenna Solicitors for the complainant, said a worker hired in to cover his client's absence had been 'left in that position' when his client ought to have taken the job back. Mary Fay BL, appearing for Coca-Cola instructed by Arthur Cox solicitors, told the WRC the job Ms Deveney previously occupied had 'just grown to such an extent it would not be reasonable to expect one person to do all the duties' and that the position had to be 'split'. In her decision, adjudicator Patricia Owens examined the job descriptions for Ms Deveney's former job and the new position. She noted that the grade and pay were the same for both jobs. However, the old role was described as a 'manager' position, reporting to director level, while the new role was described as a 'lead' position and did not involve managing a budget, the adjudicator noted. The 'manager' position described responsibilities at a 'strategic level' while the new 'portfolio' lead had duties that were 'very much operational', she wrote. She added that it was 'not difficult to imagine how offensive' the suggestion that 'a small portion' of the budget Ms Deveney once managed would be requested for her. Ms Owens concluded that the new post 'constituted a demotion for the complainant'. Ms Owens also wrote that she was 'struck by the inconsistencies' in Mr A's account of his discussions with the complainant on the new role, while Ms Deveney had been 'consistent throughout'. She concluded on the balance of probabilities that the employer had 'already decided that the complainant would move to the new role upon her return from maternity leave and that there was no intention to provide her with options'. Ms Owens called it a 'fait accompli', and also rejected a further argument by the firm that the transfer was required because of organisational change. She concluded that Ms Deveney had been discriminated against on the grounds of gender by not being returned to her former position after maternity leave. The adjudicator awarded €68,000 in compensation for the breach, just short of a year's basic salary.
Daily Mail
06-06-2025
- Business
- Daily Mail
Pregnant accountant wins £30k payout after her 'spiteful' boss cut her hours when she called in with morning sickness before she was sacked in 'sham' redundancy
A pregnant accountant has won more than £30,000 after her boss cut her hours when she called in with morning sickness before sacking her just as she was due to go on maternity leave. Sadia Shakil was told by property boss Mohammed Saleem 'it would be best if you only come into work for two days per week' after she told him she was pregnant and experiencing sickness, a tribunal heard. This forced Mrs Shakil to take on another full-time job to cope with the financial pressures of an upcoming baby - and still had to find time in evenings and at weekends to fulfill the two days work for her 'spiteful' boss. The burden of money worries weighed on her so heavily she questioned if it was the 'right thing to have a baby' and didn't enjoy pregnancy. However, Mr Saleem ignored her throughout her pregnancy and sacked her just as she was due to go on maternity leave in a 'sham' redundancy. Now a tribunal has ordered Mr Saleem's property development company to pay Mrs Shakil £31,860 after she sued him for maternity discrimination. 'Hateful' Mr Saleem even described Mrs Shakil's pregnancy as 'embarrassing' during tribunal proceedings, it was heard. Birmingham Employment Tribunal was told Mrs Shakil joined Mr Saleem's company Samsons Ltd, based in Bedford, Beds, in October 2020. She became pregnant in early 2021 and in March 2021 called Mr Saleem to say she was unwell due to morning sickness as she was pregnant. The following day he 'unilaterally reduced her hours of work from full-time to two days per week', it was heard. He told Mrs Shakil: 'After careful thought and deliberation especially considering that I am unable to give you extra work as I am abroad and in view that you are feeling unwell during your pregnancy it would be best if you only come into work for two days per week.' It was a 'financial struggle' for Mrs Shakil to only work two days per week because her husband was out of a job at the time so she was the main source of their income. A tribunal report said: 'She was motivated to stay with [Samsons Ltd] as she had accrued sufficient pre-pregnancy service to qualify for maternity leave, which would not be the case with new employment. '[She] experienced stress, anxiety and panic from the time that [Mr Saleem] reduced her hours to part-time. 'She did not know how she and her husband were going to manage financially and how she would be able to afford all the things needed for a new baby. '[Her] anxiety manifested itself over the period after April 2021 in sleepless nights, low self-esteem, frequent tearfulness, rumination and being 'plagued by worrisome thoughts day and night', including doubts about whether she had done the right thing to have a baby at all when she was not financially stable. 'She experienced panic attacks and had feelings of fear that she would not be able to obtain alternative or additional work if prospective employers found out she was pregnant. 'This led her to set about concealing her pregnancy with baggy clothes or by asking for interviews to be conducted remotely. 'This inhibited [her] enjoyment of her pregnancy because she felt she had to conceal it much of the time. During interviews she would feel embarrassed and anxious.' After just over a month, Mrs Shakil obtained a full-time job in a second finance role. The report said: 'She hoped that, if she did this job alongside the part-time hours she still had with [Samsons Ltd] to make ends meet, she would be able to return to full-time hours with [the company] once she returned from maternity leave.' While pregnant, she had to work 8.30am to 5pm five days per week, had to commute 45 minutes to that job once a week, then fit in two days of work with Samsons Ltd and travel to the office to do paperwork in evenings and at weekends. As her pregnancy progressed she felt 'confused' by a lack of correspondence from Mr Saleem about her maternity leave. She suffered complications and was booked in to be induced so informed Mr Saleem she was going to begin her maternity leave on October 1. But a couple of days before, he sacked her due to 'redundancy'. He also claimed he had no idea she was pregnant. After the arrival of her newborn son, Mrs Shakil and her husband had to move in with her parents after she lost her job and the early weeks with her baby were 'marred' by trying to resolve her money issues. The tribunal found that Mr Saleem sacked Mrs Shakil because she was pregnant, not redundancy. Employment Judge Vereena Jones said: 'The discrimination took place at a time in [Mrs Shakil's] life which she had hoped and planned would be exciting and happy - the pregnancy, birth and early life of her first child. 'Instead, she suffered physical and emotional symptoms of anxiety and distress. These included sleepless nights, panic attacks, intrusive anxious thoughts and tearfulness. 'There was evidence that her confidence and self-esteem were damaged by the discrimination. These symptoms persisted from the time she was told that her hours had been cut to two days per week, until her baby was born. 'The symptoms did not stop then, however, because of her ongoing financial struggles. '[Mrs Shakil] had to take a second job to mitigate the effects of the discrimination. This meant she has to work very long hours during what was a difficult pregnancy. '[She] was confused and distressed by Mr Saleem's behaviour... Mr Saleem was someone known to [her] family and considerably senior to her in age and authority in the organisation and in her community. '[Mrs Shakil's] feelings were further hurt by her dismissal on the sham basis... that her job was redundant. 'The effects of the discriminatory dismissal were ongoing at the time of the hearing, four years later, because [she] is still worried that she might have a similar experience with her new employer if she decides to have another baby.'
