ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00043797
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Karlina Senknehte | King Communications |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives |
| Ellen Walsh Peninsula |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00054092-001 | 11/12/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/10/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Niamh O'Carroll
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
The Complainant alleges that she was unfairly dismissed from her employment due to her pregnancy. The Respondent alleges that she was dismissed due to her poor performance and attitude and had no knowledge of her pregnancy until it received the WRC complaint form.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant after taking the affirmation gave her evidence as follows: She started to work in the Gorey store. Her manager was Mr. Murphy. There was one other employee called Conor. He was very nice and helpful. She didn’t get on very well with Mr. Murphy. He screamed at her when she made a mistake. He told her she was very arrogant and couldn’t take criticism. She received her training mostly from Conor. She didn’t get an improvement plan after the issues were addressed by Mr. Murphy. She asked when she would be getting more training and Mr. Murphy said that she “would get there, learn on the job, it just takes time”. Then she was moved to the Enniscorthy. She like it in Enniscorthy. She got on well with the staff and loved the customers. The Complainant accepted that she did have a lot to learn. She did ask several times what she needed to do to improve. She was told that she was doing very well and she would get there. The Complainant denied that she was ever spoken to about her attitude and/or her mistakes. When she moved to Enniscorthy, she was pregnant. She was trying to find a doctor. She was calling lots of doctors and was using the store Wifi to get information about pregnancy and doctors. Mr. Morrissey was in the storeroom when she was making the calls. He must have heard her say to the doctor that she was pregnant. A few days later she was fired. Mr. Hogan called her to confirm the dismissal. The Complainant accepted under cross examination that she never directly told anyone who worked for the Respondent that she was pregnant. The Complainant tried to find a job in Ireland. She couldn’t because she was pregnant. She returned to Latvia. She got a job in September 2022. She then went on Maternity leave. It is paid leave. The Complainant believes that she was fired because of her pregnancy. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Mr. Robert Murphy after taking the oath gave his evidence as follows: He is a Store manager for the Respondent for the last seven years. The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a sales assistant. She got full training by Mr. Murphy. There were several issues with the Complainant almost from the start of her employment. She was rude to customers, walked away from customers, she wouldn’t take instructions and she made mistakes. Her attitude was very poor. She wasn’t great with her colleagues either. She was spoken to informally several times. She never really said anything when reprimanded. She just shrugged her shoulders. Mr. Murphy emailed Rory Hogan about the Complainant. He suggested that she should be moved to another store. Mr. Murphy denied that he ever shouted at the Complainant. He may have been a bit harsh on her once or twice, but he did apologise. Aaron Morrissey after affirming gave his evidence as follows: At the time he was the store manager in Enniscorthy. The Complainant was moved to the Enniscorthy store on the 7th June 2022. Mr. Morrisey on a number of occasions had to talk to her about her attitude towards customers and staff. He spoke to her about six or seven times. He tried to explain what she was doing wrong but she just replied, “I know what I am doing”. Things did not improve. After a few weeks Mr. Morrissey emailed Mr. Hogan about the issues. Mr. Morrissey after a conversation with Mr Hogan the decision was made to let the complainant go. Mr. Morrissey informed the Complainant that day. Mr. Morrissey only found out she was pregnant was when this case was filed. He denied that he gave her permission to go to the doctor to get a blood test. He denied overhearing the Complainant’s conversation with her doctor about her being pregnant. Rory Hogan after taking the affirmation gave his evidence as follows: He is the HR manager for the last fifteen years. There are 88 employees with the Respondent company, 53 men and 35 women. There are currently 6 women on maternity leave and 10 women that have reduced there hours to facilitate the work live balance. After the first week issues with the Complainant started to emerge. Mr Murphy had spoken to him about the Complainant’s attitude. He asked that Mr. Murphy deal with it in store. A few weeks later he came back to Mr. Hogan and said it wasn’t working out the Complainant. He suggested maybe moving her to the store in Enniscorthy. We said we should try that. Then about ten days after she was in Enniscorthy Mr. Morrissey contacted Mr. Hogan because her attitude was very poor, she was rude to customers and wasn’t making any sales. At that point everything had been tried. She was trained by two different managers, was moved to a different store and was spoken to multiple times by her managers. Mr. Morrissey dismissed the Complainant. After that Mr. Hogan called her to discuss her dismissal. After the dismissal she was offered an appeal. She declined the appeal. Mr. Hogan did not know the Complainant was pregnant until the WRC complaint form came. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant alleges that she was dismissed from her employment because she was pregnant. The Respondent denies the allegation and states that she was dismissed because of her very poor attitude and performance. The Complainant’s evidence was that she was never given any warnings about her performance either in Gorey or Enniscorthy. The Respondent’s witnesses, Mr. Morrissey and Mr. Murphy both gave evidence that her attitude towards customers was very poor, and her sales performance wasn’t what was expected. At the time of her dismissal she hadn’t made any sales. The Respondent is a relatively large company with 88 employees, 35 of which are women. Currently there are 6 women on maternity leave and 10 on reduced hours to facilitate their home /work balance. The evidence given by Mr. Hogan demonstrate a healthy attitude towards pregnant women and those who wanted to spend more time at home with their children. I found Mr. Hogan’s evidence in that regard very compelling. I also note that the Complainant admits that she never told anyone within the Respondent entity that she was pregnant. The only thing she could say is that Mr. Cummiskey could have heard her on the phone talking about her pregnancy. Initially she stated that she asked Mr. Cummiskey for time off to go to the doctor for a blood test. Later she added that she told Mr. Cummiskey she needed to go to the doctor for blood test because she was pregnant. I did not find the Complainant evidence compelling in that regard. I can find no evidence that the Complainant was dismissed from her employment due to pregnancy. I can find no evidence that anyone within the Respondent entity even knew she was pregnant. It is for that reason I find that the complaint is not well founded and accordingly fails. |
Decision:
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
The complaint is not well founded and accordingly fails. |
Dated: 11th October 2023.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Niamh O'Carroll
Key Words:
Dismissal. Pregnancy. Knowledge. Performance. |