The owner of a creche asked a pregnant child-care employee “was it planned or unplanned?” 17 days before sacking her from her post.
Now, the female creche owner - referred to only as AG - must pay up after the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) awarded the child-care worker just under €5,000 after finding she was unfairly dismissed because she was pregnant.
The identities of all parties in recently taken unfair dismissal cases are now protected under new laws introduced by the previous government last year.
In the case, the sacked worker said after her employer asked if the pregnancy was planned or unplanned, the employer went on to remark on January 19th of this year: ‘I think it’s shocking to see all these young mothers continuously having babies and being put up in small hotel rooms - it’s a disgrace’.
The worker was five weeks pregnant at the time.
The woman, a mother of a two-year-old boy said: “There had previously been no issue with my work and no complaints made against me.”
The woman had commenced work at the creche last September and said the conversation where she informed her employer she was pregnant was witnessed by a creche manager.
At hearing, AG denied the worker had informed her she was pregnant.
Able to show texts
However, the worker was able to show texts to the WRC hearing sent to AG referring to EPU, or the Early Pregnancy Unit, as she missed work to attend hospital for a suspected ectopic pregnancy.
The woman also showed texts received from the creche manager, who witnessed her informing the owner of her pregnancy.
The pregnant woman told the hearing that on February 4th, she was looking after 15 toddlers by herself in the toddler room and was asked by the owner how often the children in the sleep room were being checked.
The woman said she told the owner she couldn’t do two jobs and the owner replied “not for much longer”.
The next day, the worker was changing a child’s nappy in the changing room and AG came into the room and seemed annoyed.
The worker said AG became aggressive and elbowed her out of the way. The worker alleged AG told her to get out and that she had “two lovely girls” starting work the following Monday.
The worker said to AG that she had, if was letting her go, to first give her a warning and AG replied that she did not need to.
Two days later, the worker wrote to AG seeking reasons as to why she was sacked and AG replied stating that she was unable to offer her work at that time and there was no denial in the reply letter that a dismissal had occurred.
AG told the hearing that the worker resigned voluntarily and that she did not wish to re-engage her and wrote to her to say there were no positions available.
In her findings, adjudication officer Emile Daly said there was a conflict of evidence in relation to the unfair dismissal claim.
Ms Daly said: “On balance, taking into account the text messages that support the complainant’s version of events, I prefer the evidence of the complainant. I accept her evidence that a dismissal occurred.”
Ms Daly awarded €4,000 for the unfair dismissal and an additional €902 for the breach by AG under the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act.
