Labour Court: Woman who was seven months pregnant at time of her dismissal was not unfairly dismissed

About this case:

• Citation:
  UDD1853
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Labour Court

The woman asserted in evidence that she had told a colleague of her pregnancy the week before her dismissal, and although her uniform was “baggy”, her employer ought to have known that she was pregnant.

Finding that the woman’s former employer had discharged the burden of proof to establish that pregnancy was not the reason for her dismissal, Chairman Kevin Foley said that it was not for the Court to “elevate the appellant’s assertion [that her employer was aware of her pregnancy] to the status of evidence”.

Background

Ms Anna Dudek commenced employment with Synergy Security Solutions Limited in November 2016 and her employment was terminated by reason of dismissal in January 2017 – she was employed for a period of approximately 10 weeks. Synergy stated to Ms Dudek that the dismissal was because she was not an appropriate fit with the organisation.

Ms Dudek did not inform Synergy that she was pregnant at the time of her recruitment, nor did she formally advise Synergy of her pregnancy at any time before her dismissal.

Ms Dudek made a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977-2015 that she had been unfairly dismissed by Synergy – Ms Dudek contended that she was dismissed because of her pregnancy.

In February 2018, the Adjudication Officer found that Ms Dudek’s complaint failed.

Labour Court

Ms Dudek appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 8(A) of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015.

Chairman of the Labour Court, Mr Kevin Foley, explained in his decision that in order for a Complainant to have locus standi to make a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2015, he or she is required under Sections 2(1)(a) and 3(1)(a) to have 12 month’s service with the employer at the date of dismissal. However, Section 6 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015 in effect provides that where the alleged reason for dismissal was pregnancy, a dismissal is unfair regardless of length of service.

Ms Dudek submitted that, although she never formally advised Synergy of her pregnancy, she was seven months pregnant at the time of her dismissal and that she was obviously pregnant.

Ms Dudek confirmed that she hid her pregnancy from Synergy throughout her employment, and it is common case that she wore loose or “baggy” uniform clothes during her employment – however, Ms Dudek submitted that she told a colleague – “Mr C” – of her pregnancy one week before her dismissal – who “advised her not to speak of her pregnancy in the workplace”.

It was, however, common case that Mr C “was not a manager or a person with any function in relation to Ms Dudek’s employment”.

On behalf of Synergy, it was submitted that none of the decision makers in the matter of Ms Dudek’s dismissal were aware of her pregnancy.

Each person involved in the decision to dismiss stated in evidence before the Labour Court that Mr C did not advise them of Ms Dudek’s pregnancy prior to her dismissal, and gave evidence to the Court that the sole reason for her dismissal was that she did not perform effectively in her job and was not a good fit for the company.

The Court stated that Ms Dudek offered no evidence to the Court to support her assertion that Synergy was aware of her pregnancy, and that the Court could not elevate Ms Dudek’s “assertion to the status of evidence”.

Furthermore, the Court heard evidence from the three staff of Synergy involved in the decision to dismiss that they were unaware of Ms Dudek’s pregnancy at the time of her dismissal, and that all of the managers of Synergy outlined in evidence the nature of the concerns which they had as regards the performance of Ms Dudek and which led to her dismissal.

While Ms Dudek disputed the issues raised by Synergy and stated in evidence that no matters of significance were raised with her such that she was advised of any risk to her employment; it was not for the Court “to consider the fairness or otherwise of the decision to dismiss or to consider the procedures employed by [Synergy] in arriving at that decision if the dismissal was not by reason of pregnancy”.

Emphasising that it was for the Court to determine whether the reason for Ms Dudek’s dismissal was her pregnancy, and only on that basis could it find that the dismissal was unfair, the Court found on the balance of probability that Synergy had no knowledge of Ms Dudek’s pregnancy at the time of her dismissal.

Consequently, the Court held that Synergy “discharged the burden of proof which rested upon it to establish that pregnancy was not the reason for the dismissal”.

Concluding that Ms Dudek was not dismissed by reason of her pregnancy, the Labour Court dismissed her appeal.

• by Seosamh Gráinséir for Irish Legal News