Backwards employer fined for firing pregant Director.

Morag

Yes in this day and age they fired a director who was expecting her 3rd child and had even told her they didn't want her having another child and had expected her to work while on maternity leave and after being fired she lost the baby.

It is good that the courts found against them and we have the legislation to take them to court but this sort of shít shouldn't be happening in this day and age.


http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/director-lost-her-job-after-third-pregnancy-187686.html

Director lost her job after third pregnancy

By Noel Baker

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

A pregnant woman was effectively sacked while on maternity leave by one of the country’s major hotel groups, having previously been warned that one of her bosses was close to former taoiseach Brian Cowen.

Julie O’Brien, who had worked as a sales and marketing director at the O’Callaghan Hotel group, was awarded €315,000 after the Equality Tribunal found she had been victimised, harassed, and fired due to discrimination.
Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/director-lost-her-job-after-third-pregnancy-187686.html#.T2g-mpxcWGA.twitter#ixzz1peKtiT4V

Millicent

I know which hotel chain I'm never staying with now. Absolutely disgusting behaviour and I'm amazed the payout wasn't more.

LittleBook

Sharrow wrote: »

Yes in this day and age they fired a director who was expecting her 3rd child and had even told her they didn't want her having another child and had expected her to work while on maternity leave

I think it happens more than we realise, just most companies aren't stupid enough to let the employee get into a position where they can prove it in court.

Morag

LittleBook wrote: »

I think it happens more than we realise, just most companies aren't stupid enough to let the employee get into a position where they can prove it in court.

Or the employee doesn't have the money to get a solicitor and barrister to take it to court or the energy/will/resolve to do so.

Honey-ec

Millicent wrote: »

I know which hotel chain I'm never staying with now. Absolutely disgusting behaviour and I'm amazed the payout wasn't more.

My own company has stopped using them for C&B because of this. Good enough for them. They were also hauled over the coals last year for paying non-national chambermaids well under dropping the pay to minimum wage for existing workers against government guidelines.

I am a friend

Its also going to result in less management level positions for women of 'child bearing' years..

whippet

I am a friend wrote: »

Its also going to result in less management level positions for women of 'child bearing' years..

unfortunately that is very true and is a huge factor in the gender imbalance at senior level across the board.

While employers will deny that is comes in to consideration when recruiting / promoting for senior positions it has to be part of the decision.

LittleBook

I wonder why Mr A and Mr B were afforded anonymity but not Julie O'Brien. Anyone know how that works?

cdaly_

It may be that she waived her right to anonymity or that she was unwilling to name A and B to the journalist. It should be the case that the court proceedings are a matter of public record in any case.

orl

The Tribunal has a policy of not naming witnesses. This is because nobody wants the first thing to emerge about them in a google search to be that they were witnesses in an equality case. Anonymisation is not provided to the complainant or respondent (unless there are exceptional circumstances) as there are consequences to taking legal proceedings. I suppose a distinction is made between being an employee and an employer.

Morag

LittleBook wrote: »

I wonder why Mr A and Mr B were afforded anonymity but not Julie O'Brien. Anyone know how that works?

Anyone who knows the hotel chain or the hotel business in Dublin or those type of political business circles knows who they are. It's a small country.

pious11

Honey-ec I think you have got your 'facts' wrong on this one...its illegal to pay below minimum wage

Wibbs

Indeed it is pious11, though on top of the original posters link, that particular company has had previous where it concerns dropping staff wages and "bending" the rules.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/hotel-first-to-cut-minimum-wage-2546316.html

http://www.asap.co.uk/news/ocallaghan-hotel-group-ordered-to-reinstate-staff-wages-5635943.html

http://www.impact.ie/iopen24/o%C4%80%E2%80%99callaghan-hotels-move-staff-minimum-wage-despite-minist-t-662.html

Thems the facts.

*Mod hat on* OK folks if you want to add any comments leveling charges against this or any other entity, please link to reliable sources. We don't need any ambulance chasers sniffing around. Thanks.

pious11

Ok thanks...sorry am I bit slow or is there nothing in those articles saying the pay was 2well under minimum wage" as per honey-ec's comment?

Wibbs

That's why I've pointed out that in future people should back up their posts with links to reliable sources. Have edited the above post to reflect this.

pious11

Ok so they didnt pay the chambermaids below minimum wage did they? Cos I didnt tink you could get away wit doing dat

pious11

ok thanks for clearing dat up...bcos I didnt tink anyone could do dat in ireland

Wibbs

No text speak please use your whole keyboard when posting. Thank you

MarkR

Millicent wrote: »

I know which hotel chain I'm never staying with now. Absolutely disgusting behaviour and I'm amazed the payout wasn't more.

If anyone is looking for a list of where not to stay

• Alexander Hotel - Merrion Square, Dublin 2
• Davenport Hotel - Merrion Street Lower, Dublin 2
• Mont Clare Hotel
• Stephen's Green Hotel
• Gibraltar Hotel
• Annapolis Hotel - USA

From http://www.ocallaghanhotels.com/about.html

Millicent

MarkR wrote: »

If anyone is looking for a list of where not to stay

• Alexander Hotel - Merrion Square, Dublin 2
• Davenport Hotel - Merrion Street Lower, Dublin 2
• Mont Clare Hotel
• Stephen's Green Hotel
• Gibraltar Hotel
• Annapolis Hotel - USA

From http://www.ocallaghanhotels.com/about.html

I doff my hat to you, sir! :pac:

Wompa1

Kind off point but figured I'd post it since it makes me think about it. I worked with a woman who went on maternity leave for 11 months. She came back for 5 weeks and went on maternity leave for another 11 months. She came back and her skills had completely regressed and in that time others were laid off and her job actually got automated by a software. It also turned out that she was not doing the job very well, as I was asked to step in for the initial 11 months and had to re-work a lot of what she had done.

But her being on maternity leave meant she was untouchable. What if the woman just sucks at her job and the company has to let people go for budget reasons? you think it can't be a woman on maternity leave?

Dolbert

Wompa1 wrote: »

What if the woman just sucks at her job and the company has to let people go for budget reasons? you think it can't be a woman on maternity leave?

Most companies won't touch maternity entitlements with a 50ft pole, with good reason.

Wompa1

Dolorous wrote: »

Most companies won't touch maternity entitlements with a 50ft pole, with good reason.

What's the good reason though? Would it be ok if the company ensure they have paid them for their maternity leave allowance of 14 weeks or whatever it is.

I know working in a large company like I did, with the recession there were lots of lay offs and getting approval for new hires was very difficult and took months to process.

I also worked with lots of ladies who had kids, came back and then decided to work part time instead. But the work was deadline based. So deadlines were missed because of their chopping and changing. But again, what could my boss do? If he didn't flex for them they would have probably come after the company or in the least the other women on staff would have made his life hell. It doesn't seem very fair.

Dolbert

Wompa1 wrote: »

What's the good reason though? Would it be ok if the company ensure they have paid them for their maternity leave allowance of 14 weeks or whatever it is.

The good reason is that, rightly or wrongly, they would be terrified of getting sued. Though I'm not sure of the legal standing of the above scenario. Employment Law was never my strong point...

Wompa1

Dolorous wrote: »

The good reason is that, rightly or wrongly, they would be terrified of getting sued. Though I'm not sure of the legal standing of the above scenario. Employment Law was never my strong point...

Ok, yeah that's what I thought. Oh well. Life is unfair I suppose. Am in America at the moment. Apparently maternity leave over here is very short but the ladies aren't complaining though in general the work ethic here seems crazy. Probably why there's so much crazy sh!t happening here. People live in a pressure cooker.

LenaClaire

Wompa1 wrote: »

Ok, yeah that's what I thought. Oh well. Life is unfair I suppose. Am in America at the moment. Apparently maternity leave over here is very short but the ladies aren't complaining though in general the work ethic here seems crazy. Probably why there's so much crazy sh!t happening here. People live in a pressure cooker.

In the US they are only legally required to hold your position for 12 weeks - there is no legal requirement for payment at but most large companies will pay for 6 weeks as part of benefits if you have been there for a year and you must work 12 months before you are eligible again.

From my understanding it is one of the only countries to not have any legal pay requirements for maternity leave.

LittleBook

Wompa1 wrote: »

Kind off point but figured I'd post it since it makes me think about it. I worked with a woman who went on maternity leave for 11 months. She came back for 5 weeks and went on maternity leave for another 11 months. She came back and her skills had completely regressed and in that time others were laid off and her job actually got automated by a software. It also turned out that she was not doing the job very well, as I was asked to step in for the initial 11 months and had to re-work a lot of what she had done.

But her being on maternity leave meant she was untouchable. What if the woman just sucks at her job and the company has to let people go for budget reasons? you think it can't be a woman on maternity leave?

A company can make someone redundant when she returns from maternity leave, just not while she's on maternity leave (for obvious reasons). They can lay off someone who is pregnant before she starts maternity leave but they can't make her redundant because she's pregnant.

In the case you mention they could surely have made her redundant when her job no longer existed. This has happened twice in my friend's company.

Stheno

LittleBook wrote: »

A company can make someone redundant when she returns from maternity leave, just not while she's on maternity leave (for obvious reasons). They can lay off someone who is pregnant before she starts maternity leave but they can't make her redundant because she's pregnant.

In the case you mention they could surely have made her redundant when her job no longer existed. This has happened twice in my friend's company.

Actually and having dealt with the situation, once a company can prove maternity leave is not the case, they can make an employee redundant when on maternity leave for exactly the reasons you stated above. If their job is no longer there it's irrelevant.

LittleBook

Stheno wrote: »

Actually and having dealt with the situation, once a company can prove maternity leave is not the case, they can make an employee redundant when on maternity leave for exactly the reasons you stated above. If their job is no longer there it's irrelevant.

In Ireland? I think the company has to wait until she returns to work to actually do it, if you know what I mean. The section on redundancy and maternity leave at Citizens Information is clear on this and, in the two cases I'm aware of, it was (literally) done on the day they returned to work.

But since you've experienced it, I'm sure it has happened, there are ways and means I guess ... perhaps the process began while she was away but the redundancy was implemented when she returned?

Anyway, I think that it's no more difficult to fire an employee who is pregnant or returning to work after maternity leave than any other employee ... any company with a qualified HR person can oversee this, which makes the arrogance and stupidity of the company/people in the OP all the more absurd.