A finance director, who was presented with a new contract cutting her pay by 60 per cent four days after telling her new boss she was pregnant and planned to take maternity leave, has been awarded €30,000 for unfair dismissal.

Dublin English language school Academic Bridge Ltd was ordered to pay the sum on foot of a complaint by Camila Nascimento Machado under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.

The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) found that although there was “no convincing case” the worker’s pregnancy was a factor in her redundancy, there were “grave procedural inadequacies” in the selection process.

While there was a credible basis for reorganisation of the business “in the face of crisis”, a new contract with a 60 per cent pay cut could not be considered a “serious alternative”, the tribunal also found.

An adjudicator wrote that the new owner of the school, businessman Shafikul Islam, “was apparently surprised that this was not acceptable”.

Denying unfair dismissal, counsel for the school, Eoin Morris, said in a legal submission the complainant’s termination was “solely on the grounds of redundancy”.

It was after “the revelation of significant undisclosed [or] underdeclared tax liabilities” at the company following its takeover by Mr Islam in September 2024, Mr Morris submitted.

The tribunal heard Ms Nascimento Machado informed Mr Islam on 7th November 2024 that she was 25 weeks pregnant and would be taking maternity leave.

Her contract of employment provided for the payment of 80 per cent salary for 26 weeks’ maternity leave, her barrister Barry O’Mahony told the tribunal in a submission.

Four days later on 11th November that year, the tribunal heard that Mr Islam sent around an all-staff email announcing that “significant salary reductions” were needed to save the business.

The same day, Mr O’Mahony submitted, his client was presented with the new contract cutting her salary from €64,000 to €24,000 – its start date backdated to the 1st of November.

She did not accept the terms and filed a formal grievance three days later on 14th November. She was given notice of termination the following day, November 15th, and was left out of work on December 15th, 2024, after working out her final month.

Mr Morris said that his client, Mr Islam, had taken on Ms Nascimento Machado’s duties. Her pregnancy had “no bearing” on what transpired, it was submitted.

“The redundancy of the complainant was an impersonal act involving commercial necessity and change, and not a discriminatory or retaliatory measure alleged by the complainant,” he submitted.

Mr O’Mahony said: “Her dismissal was not a genuine redundancy, but retaliation for her raising concerns of wholly unreasonable changes as well as in response to her pregnancy.”

Ruling on the case, adjudication officer Pat Brady wrote that whatever Mr Islam’s level of knowledge about the company’s debts when he took over, the businessman had been “well aware” who was being paid what because he had told the complainant it was why the old owner was selling up.

Mr Islam chose to tackle these “large debts” by “unilaterally announcing a salary cut” and presenting the finance director with a new contract which “very substantially and adversely altered her terms”.

“The respondent was apparently surprised that this was not acceptable to her,” Mr Brady wrote.

The circumstances of the business were a credible basis for reorganisation in the face of crisis – but there were “grave procedural inadequacies”, and a new contract a 60 per cent pay cut could not be considered a “serious alternative”, Mr Brady wrote.

He ruled the dismissal unfair and directed the respondent to pay Ms Nascimento Machado €30,000 for her losses – noting that if her contract had been honoured, she would have been paid over €25,000 during her maternity leave.