A nanny who alleged her employer turned “cold” after she disclosed her pregnancy and failed to “coerce” her into resigning before sacking her on “concocted” grounds has won €55,000.
The worker, Naomi Hanlon, secured the award on foot of a complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1998 against Emer McGrath, in whose household she had been employed from August 2020 to December 2023.
The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) heard there was a dispute about what exactly Ms Hanlon told her employer during a performance review meeting on 2nd October 2023 after stating that she was pregnant.
Ms McGrath’s evidence was that the nanny “clearly and unambiguously stated she did not intend to come back to work”.
Ms Hanlon denied this.
She said her employer had questioned her about her plans at the meeting, but that at the time she “had not considered” what she would be doing as she had been feeling unwell.
Ms McGrath, however, said she had “congratulated” her employee and “expressed her happiness” at the news before discussing Ms Hanlon’s “likely end date”.
Ms Hanlon said the meeting was “awkward” and a break from the “typical affectionate and close relationship that the parties had enjoyed”.
Her evidence was that the employment relationship “changed irrevocably” after the conversation.
She said that when she raised the prospect of telling her employer’s children that she was pregnant, Ms McGrath moved to change the subject.
The complainant added that when she sought to “clarify” her annual leave entitlements with her employer, Ms McGrath adopted a “cold” demeanour.
Communications with her boss, which had been “frequent and mutually friendly” up to that point, became “sparse and curt”, the complainant said.
The WRC heard Ms McGrath emailed Ms Hanlon on 5th December, 2023 addressing the calculation of annual leave and stating that the nanny’s employment would be “ending” on 14th March, 2024.
Ms Hanlon, by response the following day, told her employer that she had not resigned and that she planned to start maternity leave in March 2024.
Ms McGrath and Ms Hanlon continued to disagree in correspondence up to 15th December, 2023, when the employer alleged Ms Hanlon had broken her contract of employment by being a director of a family business.
Ms McGrath also quoted a planning application in which Ms Hanlon had referred to an intention to work on an adjoining farm, in the correspondence, the tribunal heard.
Ms Hanlon’s response was to state that she had “no employment” other than in Ms McGrath’s household.
On 22nd December, 2023, Ms McGrath wrote again to Ms Hanlon and said: “Your employment is at risk if you are not being honest with us.”
Ms Hanlon told her employer on 29th December that year that she had been advised to take time off on medical grounds. Ms McGrath wrote back claiming Ms Hanlon had been “dishonest” about external engagements.
Ms McGrath’s email of 29th December also referred to the alleged conversation about resigning as another factor that had damaged trust and confidence. It went on to state that she could not “trust” Ms Hanlon “to be employed in the care of our children”, the WRC heard. Her termination was effected two days later on New Year’s Eve, the tribunal recorded.
Solicitor Michelle Loughnane of Mullany Walsh Maxwells who appeared for Ms Hanlon, said Ms McGrath “initially attempted to coerce the complainant’s resignation”.
“When this did not occur, they concocted spurious grounds for dismissal,” Ms Loughnane added.
Mary Fay BL, instructed by MacCarthy Johnston Solicitors for the respondent, told the tribunal all allegations raised by Ms Hanlon were denied and that the dismissal was not “in any way influenced by her pregnancy”.
The adjudicator, Brian Dolan, noted in his decision that both Ms Hanlon and Ms McGrath “steadfastly maintained their respective positions under robust cross-examination by opposing counsel” about that meeting.
He said the conflict in evidence between the women was “essentially impossible to resolve” but that it was clear there was a misunderstanding.
He said it was “far from inconceivable” that Ms Hanlon said she would end her employment the following year, intending to mean to “end the active point of her employment and commence maternity leave”.
“It is equally conceivable, and not at all unreasonable, that the respondent took this to mean that the complainant intended to permanently resign,” he wrote.
He wrote that Ms Hanlon should have resolved the misunderstanding by writing to her employer. However, he wrote that Ms McGrath “did not accept that she may have understood” and instead “took exception to the fact [Ms Hanlon] contradicted her”.
This was not a basis for “any form of disciplinary sanction at all, let alone the dismissal”.
He noted that Ms Hanlon’s contract clearly stated that she agreed “not to take any other employment” – but that the document “contains no prohibition on being involved in third-party organisations in a non-employment capacity”.
He noted evidence given by Ms Hanlon and her father that she was a shareholder and a director in her father’s companies without day-to-day involvement.
It seemed Ms McGrath “simply refused to accept” Ms Hanlon’s explanations, he wrote, and met her responses with a further allegation about the planning document.
He noted that text messages shown to the tribunal made it clear Ms McGrath had been aware of the planning application issue some 19 months prior to the dismissal and had not previously expressed concern.
The claim that Ms Hanlon was dishonest had “not been demonstrated at all”, he added.
He concluded that Ms McGrath had failed to show the dismissal of Ms Hanlon was not connected to the pregnancy, and upheld the discrimination complaint.
He awarded the complainant 15 months’ pay for the breach, €55,575, as well as a further €500 for a breach of the Organisation of Working Time Act.
