Workplace Relations Commission (WRC)<\/a> found that although there was \u201cno convincing case\u201d the worker\u2019s pregnancy was a factor in her redundancy, there were \u201cgrave procedural inadequacies\u201d in the selection process.<\/p>\nWhile there was a credible basis for reorganisation of the business \u201cin the face of crisis\u201d, a new contract with a 60 per cent pay cut could not be considered a \u201cserious alternative\u201d, the tribunal also found.<\/p>\n
An adjudicator wrote that the new owner of the school, businessman Shafikul Islam, \u201cwas apparently surprised that this was not acceptable\u201d. <\/p>\n
Denying unfair dismissal, counsel for the school, Eoin Morris, said in a legal submission the complainant\u2019s termination was \u201csolely on the grounds of redundancy\u201d. <\/p>\n
It was after \u201cthe revelation of significant undisclosed [or] underdeclared tax liabilities\u201d at the company following its takeover by Mr Islam in September 2024, Mr Morris submitted. <\/p>\n
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. <\/p>\n
Her contract of employment provided for the payment of 80 per cent salary for 26 weeks\u2019 maternity leave, her barrister Barry O\u2019Mahony told the tribunal in a submission. <\/p>\n
Four days later on 11th November that year, the tribunal heard that Mr Islam sent around an all-staff email announcing that \u201csignificant salary reductions\u201d were needed to save the business. <\/p>\n
The same day, Mr O\u2019Mahony submitted, his client was presented with the new contract cutting her salary from \u20ac64,000 to \u20ac24,000 \u2013 its start date backdated to the 1st of November. <\/p>\n
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. <\/p>\n
Mr Morris said that his client, Mr Islam, had taken on Ms Nascimento Machado\u2019s duties. Her pregnancy had \u201cno bearing\u201d on what transpired, it was submitted. <\/p>\n
\u201cThe redundancy of the complainant was an impersonal act involving commercial necessity and change, and not a discriminatory or retaliatory measure alleged by the complainant,\u201d he submitted. <\/p>\n
Mr O\u2019Mahony said: \u201cHer dismissal was not a genuine redundancy, but retaliation for her raising concerns of wholly unreasonable changes as well as in response to her pregnancy.\u201d<\/p>\n
Ruling on the case, adjudication officer Pat Brady wrote that whatever Mr Islam\u2019s level of knowledge about the company\u2019s debts when he took over, the businessman had been \u201cwell aware\u201d who was being paid what because he had told the complainant it was why the old owner was selling up. <\/p>\n
Mr Islam chose to tackle these \u201clarge debts\u201d by \u201cunilaterally announcing a salary cut\u201d and presenting the finance director with a new contract which \u201cvery substantially and adversely altered her terms\u201d. <\/p>\n
\u201cThe respondent was apparently surprised that this was not acceptable to her,\u201d Mr Brady wrote. <\/p>\n
The circumstances of the business were a credible basis for reorganisation in the face of crisis \u2013 but there were \u201cgrave procedural inadequacies\u201d, and a new contract a 60 per cent pay cut could not be considered a \u201cserious alternative\u201d, Mr Brady wrote. <\/p>\n
He ruled the dismissal unfair and directed the respondent to pay Ms Nascimento Machado \u20ac30,000 for her losses \u2013 noting that if her contract had been honoured, she would have been paid over \u20ac25,000 during her maternity leave. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A finance director, who was presented with a new contract cutting her pay by 60 per cent four…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":60348,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[72,615,61,60,1962,6465],"class_list":["post-272610","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-business","tag-business","tag-dublin","tag-ie","tag-ireland","tag-work","tag-workplace-relations-commission"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/272610","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=272610"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/272610\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/60348"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=272610"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=272610"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=272610"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}