Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Complainant

A Health Service Provider

Representatives

Cathy McGrady BL, Instructed by Farrell Mc Elwee Solicitors

Paul Gough, Beauchamps

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00070675-001

08/04/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00070675-002

08/04/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

CA-00070675-003

08/04/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 30 and 31 of the Maternity Protection Act 1994

CA-00070675-004

08/04/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 30 and 31 of the Maternity Protection Act 1994

CA-00070675-005

08/04/2025

The complainant’s case is that she was harassed due to her gender and family status after she returned to work from maternity leave in August 2024 due to comments by her manager.

The respondent denies the complaint in full.

Ms McGrady BL gave an outline of the harassment complaint and submitted that testimony would be given by the complainant that discriminatory comments were made by the complainant’s manager which undermined her dignity at work.

Summary of Complainant’s Evidence

The complainant outlined her qualifications in Social Care. She said she worked in the southeast at two sites. Initially, she got on well with her manager. She was satisfied with her first probationary review in June 2023 as she scored good under all the competency headings. In August 2024, she returned from maternity leave. She had a handover meeting with her Team Lead colleague who had been covering the post. She said the handover meeting lasted 20 minutes and she was given a one-page sheet. She said she was seeking other documents as part of the handover and she only received these on 13th November 2024. On her return, she was based at a new site. She had responsibility for 28 clients with one other staff member. Before she left on maternity leave there were three staff. She said she raised the staffing issue with her manager. After several weeks, some agency staff were taken on. As she did not know the extent of the experience of the agency staff she contacted the agency for further information.

In early September 2024, she became aware that a staff member from another team was abroad on holidays even though he was on sick leave. She informed the relevant Team Lead in that area. She said that the staff member reported was her manager’s brother.

She had a second probation review meeting with her manager on 8th October 2024. She said this did not go well and was mind boggling. She felt her autonomy in her role was being curtailed. She said that despite the agency staff, the resources were inadequate as she had more staff before her maternity leave. The manager raised an issue that she closed the office early on one occasion. She said that she had closed the office at 3.55pm instead of 4pm.

At the probation meeting, she was accused of being sharp with staff in her communications. She said she was given no examples of this. She was also criticised about her calendar entries although she said it was set up the same as a colleague manager. Other aspects of the probation meeting included where she located herself in the office and how she engaged with staff. After the probation review she questioned herself as to how she allowed a manager to make her feel useless. She contacted HR. It was suggested to her that normally in these instances a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) is put in place. She emailed her manger about her concerns with the probation meeting and requested supports to assist with any performance deficits.

She said that PIP meetings took place although she felt she received no support between these meetings. There was a PIP scheduled for December 2024 although this was converted to a Quality Assurance meeting at a very late stage. The rescheduled PIP meeting was not rescheduled.

She said she was at a training day in January 2025 and she raised the staffing issue with her manager. She said her manager said ‘She was sick of it’ within earshot of her colleagues. She was handed a letter that day about the next probation meeting and she asked was she going to lose her job. The manager replied ‘more than likely’.

She said she was handed a draft document that she had seen for the first time at the final probation meeting on 21st January 2025.

She said the meeting was hostile from the beginning. She said that even though some amendments were made to the draft document to reflect adequate practice decisions made, the score ratings did not change. She said that towards the end of the meeting, she felt it was pointless and did not make any further comments. She was also under time pressure due to childcare.

She gave details of an incident in September 2024 at a governance meeting when she was just back from maternity leave. She said her manager made a comment that ‘she must bring them all to get the coil.’ She said that in November 2024, her manager commented that she hoped she would ‘not get pregnant again’.

Under cross-examination, Mr Gough put it to the complainant that alleged comments by her manager were not raised at the final probation meeting or during the appeal. The complainant replied that her approach during the probation and at appeal was to return to her post rather than making allegations against her manager.

She was asked if she discussed with colleagues or raised a complaint about the alleged offensive comments. She replied that she did not raise this as governance meetings were confidential and she already felt targeted at that stage.

Summary of Manager’s Evidence

The manager denied that any conversation came up about contraception. She also denied a comment to the complainant ‘not to get pregnant again’. She said that 90% of the staff are female and it is accepted that absences will arise due to maternity leave.

Summary of Team Lead’s Evidence

The witness confirmed her role as Programme Co-ordinator also referred to as Team Lead. She was new to the service and replaced the complainant whilst she was on maternity leave. The witness said she had no recollection of a ‘coil’ comment being made at the meeting in September 2024.

Closing Submission

Mr Gough submitted that although the incidents of harassment are denied, the first alleged instance in September 2025 was out of time. The testimony of two witnesses verified that the comments were not made. The complainant did not have a witness to the incidents.

Harassment Complaint

Section 14A of the Employment Equality Act provides that harassment of a worker on any of the discriminatory grounds at his workplace constitutes discrimination by the employer. Harassment is defined as any form of unwanted conduct related to any of the discriminatory grounds being conduct which has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the person. Such unwanted conduct may consist of acts, requests, spoken words, gestures or the production, display or circulation of written words, pictures or other material.

Finding

I have reviewed the testimony and particularly each of the two incidents where discriminatory comments are alleged to have been made. There is a conflict in evidence as the manager denies having made the alleged comments. Furthermore, the Team Lead who was in attendance at one of the meetings has no recollection that a discriminatory comment was made.

As the comments have been denied by the manager and this has been corroborated by a witness, I find that there is insufficient evidence that the comments were made and that the complainant was harassed. Significantly, the complainant did not follow-up on or specifically make a complaint of being harassed over the course of her employment.

I decide that the harassment complaint is not well founded.

CA-00070675-001- I decide that the harassment complaint is not well founded.

CA-00070675-002- This complaint was withdrawn.

CA-00070675-003- This complaint was withdrawn.

CA-00070675-004- This complaint was withdrawn.

CA-00070675-005- This Complaint was withdrawn.

Harassment