Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 10 views

    Director Marketing Vs Telecoms Co PREGNANCY REDUNDANCY

    Uploaded by

    needatamboli2926
    A director of marketing filed a complaint against her employer, a telecom company, for discrimination and redundancy. She had taken maternity leave in 2017 and upon returning, found that her role had been filled by another employee. In 2018, she informed her employer that she was pregnant again and was made redundant two weeks later without notice or consultation. The court found that the employer did not sufficiently prove that her pregnancy was not linked to her redundancy. It determined she experienced pregnancy discrimination and awarded her compensation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Director Marketing Vs Telecoms Co PREGNANCY REDUNDANCY

    Uploaded by

    needatamboli2926
    10 views4 pages
    A director of marketing filed a complaint against her employer, a telecom company, for discrimination and redundancy. She had taken maternity leave in 2017 and upon returning, found that her role had been filled by another employee. In 2018, she informed her employer that she was pregnant again and was made redundant two weeks later without notice or consultation. The court found that the employer did not sufficiently prove that her pregnancy was not linked to her redundancy. It determined she experienced pregnancy discrimination and awarded her compensation.

    Original Title

    Director Marketing vs Telecoms Co PREGNANCY REDUNDANCY

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    A director of marketing filed a complaint against her employer, a telecom company, for discrimination and redundancy. She had taken maternity leave in 2017 and upon returning, found that her role had been filled by another employee. In 2018, she informed her employer that she was pregnant again and was made redundant two weeks later without notice or consultation. The court found that the employer did not sufficiently prove that her pregnancy was not linked to her redundancy. It determined she experienced pregnancy discrimination and awarded her compensation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    10 views4 pages

    Director Marketing Vs Telecoms Co PREGNANCY REDUNDANCY

    Uploaded by

    needatamboli2926
    A director of marketing filed a complaint against her employer, a telecom company, for discrimination and redundancy. She had taken maternity leave in 2017 and upon returning, found that her role had been filled by another employee. In 2018, she informed her employer that she was pregnant again and was made redundant two weeks later without notice or consultation. The court found that the employer did not sufficiently prove that her pregnancy was not linked to her redundancy. It determined she experienced pregnancy discrimination and awarded her compensation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    A Director of Marketing v A Telecom and

    Electronic Communications Infrastructure


    support Company [2019]
     Decision Number

    ADJ-00019756

     Legal Body

    Workplace Relations Commission (WRC)

     Type of Claim / Jurisdiction

    Redundancy, Discrimination and Equality

    The Complainant commenced her employment with the Respondent, a


    telecom and electronic communications infrastructure support
    company, in October 2012. She was given a number of internal
    promotions and became director of marketing in October 2015.

    In 2017, the Complainant took maternity leave and returned to work in


    February 2018 – during this time she had been replaced by “Mr Xa”,
    who continued in his employment with the company after the
    Complainant returned from maternity leave.

    On the 1st of November 2018, the Complainant notified the company


    that she was pregnant. Approximately two weeks afterwards she was
    made redundant. The Complainant submitted that she was given no
    notice or offered any consultation in regard to her redundancy and
    essentially, she had been replaced by Mr Xa.

    The Complainant submitted that she had been discriminated against,


    contrary to the Employment Equality Act 1998 on gender/family status
    and pregnancy grounds in relation to her dismissal/redundancy.

    The Respondent provided that during mid to late 2017 and especially
    during 2018 the trading position had deteriorated sharply. The industry
    that the Respondent company was trading in was undergoing
    significant flux and a number of re-organisations had to take place in
    the company to allow the Company to survive. Therefore, some forty-
    one Redundancies took place and several internal reorganisations were
    also necessary and the Complainant, in conjunction with other
    colleagues, was moved among Business Units in early 2018.

    Considering whether the Complainant’s pregnancy was a determining


    discriminatory factor in her selection for redundancy, the Adjudication
    Officer informed the court that “the burden of proof shifted to the
    Respondent to prove that the alleged discriminatory dismissal/redundancy
    was not related in any way to the pregnancy”.

    The Adjudication Officer highlighted that the Complainant had been


    given no warning of the decision to make her redundant and that no
    prior consultation or consideration of alternatives had been given.

    In conclusion, the court found that the Respondent had not sufficiently
    established that there was no link to the Complainant’s Pregnancy in
    her inclusion on the redundancy exit list. The existence of considerable
    pressure to keep the Company afloat was not an acceptable excuse in a
    Pregnancy discrimination case. Accordingly, the Complainant was
    awarded €50,000 in Compensation for the Pregnancy Discrimination in
    regard to the Redundancy. In addition, the Complainant was awarded a
    sum of €5,000 for the distress and upset.

    Available at:
    https://www.legal-island.ie/articles/ire/case-law/2019/september/a-
    director-of-marketing-v-a-telecom-and-electronic-communications-
    infrastructure-support-company-2019/ Accessed 28th Nov 2023

    WRC decision:
    https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2019/august/adj-
    00019756.html

    विपणन संचालक विरुद्ध ए टेलिकॉम आणि इलेक्ट्रॉनिक कम्युनिके शन्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर सपोर्ट कं पनी
    [२०१९]
    • निर्णय क्रमांक

    ADJ-00019756

    • कायदेशीर संस्था

    कार्यस्थळ संबंध आयोग (WRC)

    • दाव्याचा प्रकार / अधिकार क्षेत्र

    अतिरेक, भेदभाव आणि समानता

    तक्रारदाराने ऑक्टोबर 2012 मध्ये एक टेलिकॉम आणि इलेक्ट्रॉनिक कम्युनिके शन्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर
    सपोर्ट कं पनी, रिस्पॉन्डंटमध्ये तिचा रोजगार सुरू के ला. तिला अनेक अंतर्गत पदोन्नती देण्यात आल्या
    आणि ऑक्टोबर 2015 मध्ये ती विपणन संचालक बनली.

    2017 मध्ये, तक्रारदाराने प्रसूती रजा घेतली आणि फे ब्रुवारी 2018 मध्ये कामावर परतली - या काळात
    तिची जागा "मिस्टर Xa" ने घेतली होती, ज्याने तक्रारदार प्रसूती रजेवरून परत आल्यानंतर कं पनीत
    नोकरी करत होते.

    1 नोव्हेंबर 2018 रोजी तक्रारदाराने कं पनीला ती गर्भवती असल्याचे कळवले. सुमारे दोन आठवड्यांनंतर
    तिला निरर्थक के ले गेले. तक्रारकर्त्याने असे सादर के ले की तिला कोणतीही नोटीस दिली गेली नाही
    किं वा तिच्या रिडंडंसी संदर्भात कोणताही सल्ला दिला गेला नाही आणि मूलत: तिची जागा श्री Xa ने
    घेतली आहे.

    तक्रारदाराने असे सादर के ले की तिच्या डिसमिस/अनावश्यकतेच्या संबंधात लिंग/कौटुंबिक स्थिती


    आणि गर्भधारणेच्या कारणास्तव, रोजगार समानता कायदा 1998 च्या विरोधात, तिच्याशी भेदभाव
    करण्यात आला आहे.

    2017 च्या मध्य ते शेवटच्या काळात आणि विशेषत: 2018 मध्ये व्यापाराची स्थिती झपाट्याने खालावत
    असल्याचे प्रतिसादकर्त्याने प्रदान के ले. रिस्पॉन्डंट कं पनी ज्या उद्योगात व्यापार करत होती त्या
    उद्योगात लक्षणीय वाढ होत होती आणि कं पनी टिकू न राहण्यासाठी कं पनीमध्ये अनेक पुनर्संस्थेची
    आवश्यकता होती. त्यामुळे, काही एकचाळीस रिडंडंसी झाल्या आणि अनेक अंतर्गत पुनर्रचना करणे
    देखील आवश्यक होते आणि तक्रारकर्त्याला, इतर सहकाऱ्यांसह, 2018 च्या सुरुवातीला व्यवसाय
    युनिट्समध्ये हलविण्यात आले.

    तक्रारदाराची गर्भधारणा ही तिच्या रिडंडंसीसाठी निवड करताना एक भेदभाव करणारा घटक आहे का हे
    लक्षात घेऊन, न्यायनिर्णय अधिकाऱ्याने न्यायालयाला कळवले की “कथित भेदभावपूर्ण
    डिसमिस/अनावश्यकपणाचा गर्भधारणेशी कोणत्याही प्रकारे संबंध नाही हे सिद्ध करण्यासाठी पुराव्याचे
    ओझे प्रतिवादीकडे सरकवले गेले. "
    न्यायनिर्णय अधिका-यांनी हायलाइट के ले की तक्रारकर्त्याला तिला निरर्थक ठरवण्याच्या निर्णयाची
    कोणतीही चेतावणी देण्यात आली नव्हती आणि कोणताही पूर्व सल्लामसलत किं वा पर्यायांचा विचार
    के ला गेला नव्हता.

    शेवटी, कोर्टाला असे आढळून आले की, रिडंडंसी एक्झिट लिस्टमध्ये तिच्या समावेशामध्ये तक्रारदाराच्या
    गर्भधारणेशी कोणताही दुवा नसल्याचे प्रतिसादकर्त्याने पुरेसे स्थापित के लेले नाही. गरोदरपणातील
    भेदभाव प्रकरणात कं पनीला चालू ठे वण्यासाठी मोठ्या प्रमाणावर दबाव असणे हे स्वीकार्य कारण
    नव्हते. त्यानुसार, तक्रारकर्त्याला रिडंडन्सीच्या संदर्भात गर्भधारणा भेदभावासाठी €50,000 भरपाई देण्यात
    आली. याव्यतिरिक्त, तक्रारकर्त्याला त्रास आणि अस्वस्थतेसाठी €5,000 ची रक्कम देण्यात आली.

    येथे उपलब्ध: https://www.legal-island.ie/articles/ire/case-law/2019/september/a-director-of-


    marketing-v-a-telecom-and-electronic-communications-infrastructure-support-company -2019/ 28
    नोव्हेंबर 2023 रोजी प्रवेश के ला

    WRC निर्णय: https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2019/august/adj-00019756.html

    You might also like