Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Carolyn Byrne

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Ireland Limited

Representatives

Self-Represented

Ms. Aleksandra Tiilikainen, IBEC

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00061818-001

27/02/2024

The Complainant commenced employment on 12th May 2008. At all relevant times the Complainant’s role was described as “Customer Service Delivery Specialist”. The Complainant remained an employee of the Respondent on the date of the hearing.

On 27th February 2024, the Complainant referred the present complaint to the Commission. Herein, she alleged that the Respondent failed to implement an increase in salary as a consequence of her being on maternity leave at the relevant time. By response, the Respondent submitted that complaint was not actionable under the impleaded legislation and was statute barred. Regarding the substantive matter, the Respondent submitted that the same had been investigated and rectified by the Respondent by means of its internal procedures.

A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 19th December 2025. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing. The matter had previously been listed for hearing on two separate occasions, however on both such occasions it was determined that the Respondent was not properly placed on notice of the hearing, and the matter was adjourned to permit their attendance.

Both parties issued extensive submissions in advance of the hearing. Said submissions were expanded upon and contested in the course of the hearing. While there no substantive dispute existed as to the relevant factual matrix, the Complainant gave brief evidence in support of her complaint. All evidence was given under oath or examination and was opened to cross examination by the opposing side.

By submission, the Respondent raised two preliminary issues as to jurisdiction. Given the nature of the same, these will be considered following a summary of the substantive matter.

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 12th May 2008, in the role of Customer Delivery Specialist. The Complainant stated that she began a period of maternity leave in February 2021. She submitted that in November 2021, while she was on protected leave, her manager discussed salary increases with other employees within her division. The Complainant did not receive a salary increase, nor was any potential increase discussed with her at that time.

The Complainant concluded her maternity leave on 10th January 2022 and returned to the workplace on 8th March 2022 following a period of accrued annual leave. Upon her return, she queried the non-payment of the increase with her then manager and was informed that employees on maternity leave did not receive salary increases, as these were based on performance during the preceding year. Some time later, on 4th December 2023, the Complainant queried this position with the internal Human Resources function of the Respondent. After failing to receive a substantive response, she sought to escalate the matter on 15th January 2024. The Complainant subsequently referred the present complaint on 27th February 2024.

The Complainant accepted that a meeting took place between herself and her manager on 8th April 2024. During this meeting, the Respondent acknowledged that an error was made and issued an apology to the Complainant. Consequently, the Complainant received a 5% salary increase which took effect from 1st May 2024. While the Complainant acknowledged that the matter was partially rectified, she maintained that she was denied a salary increase specifically due to her maternity leave. She stated that as the increase was not applied retrospectively, she suffered a period of over one year during which the 5% increase was not applied to her earnings.

Regarding the preliminary issue raised by the Respondent, the Complainant asserted that the complaint was submitted within the statutory time limits. She argued that the breach was ongoing and remained so until the date the complaint was referred. In this regard, she maintained that an extension of time was not required as the breach was active on the date of referral.

The Respondent did not raise any material dispute regarding the factual matrix presented by the Complainant. In this regard, they accepted that the Complainant was on maternity leave during the period outlined and further acknowledged that she did not receive a salary increase during that time. The Respondent submitted that this occurred due to an apparent oversight on the part of the Complainant’s then manager, for which an apology was issued.

The Respondent accepted that when the Complainant raised an internal grievance, they met with her directly to review the matter. During this process, the Respondent explained that while the standard merit increase was 2.5%, they undertook to provide a 5% increase effective from 1st May 2024 in recognition of the error. This 5% increase was intended as a form of restitution to address the retrospective element and to restore the Complainant to the position she would have occupied had the initial increase been applied. The Respondent submitted that the Complainant suffered no financial loss and argued that, due to the higher percentage applied, she earned more in wages than she otherwise would have received.

Regarding the present complaint, the Respondent raised two preliminary points regarding jurisdiction. Firstly, they submitted that the complaint was referred out of time. They argued that the alleged wrongdoing occurred upon the Complainant’s return from maternity leave on either 10th January 2022 or 8th March 2022. They noted that the statutory six-month period for referral began at that time, yet the present complaint was not referred until 27th February 2024, approximately two-years following the alleged breach. The Respondent contended that even if an extension of time were granted, the matter remained statute barred, and the Complainant did not enjoy the jurisdiction to bring the claim.

Secondly, the Respondent submitted that the complaint was not actionable under the impleaded Act. They argued that the legislation provides specific entitlements regarding maternity leave and extensions to the same, protections during leave, and the right to return to the same or a suitable alternative role thereafter. The Respondent maintained that the present matter did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Act and that the Complainant enjoyed no standing to bring the complaint under this specific statutory framework.

Regarding the present complaint, the Complainant has alleged that the Respondent did not issue her with an increase in salary due as a consequence of her then maternity leave. While the Respondent submitted that this issue had been rectified internally, they submitted that the present complaint was both misconceived and statute barred for the purposes of the present complaint.

In this regard, Section 32(1) of the Maternity Protections Act provides as follows,

“A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in relation to a dispute between an employee and the relevant employer relating to any entitlement of the employee under Part II, III or IV (or any matter arising out of or related to such entitlement)”

In this regard, part II of the Act relates to protections in the application for maternity leave and associated entitlements and is not relevant to the present complaint. Part III relates to the protection of the health and safety of pregnant employees and again is no applicable to the present matter. Part IV of the Act relates to “Employment Protection”, with Section 22 specifically providing for the preservation of certain rights while on protective leave.

Subsection one of that provision states that an employee on maternity leave,

“…shall be deemed to have been in the employment of the employer and, accordingly, while so absent the employee shall… be treated as if she or he had not been so absent…and such absence shall not affect any right (other than, except in the case of natal care absence, the employee’s right to remuneration during such absence), whether conferred by statute, contract or otherwise, and related to the employee’s employment”

Regarding the instant case, the Complainant has expressly alleged that she was denied an increase in salary due to her being absent on maternity leave. In this regard, it is apparent that the present complaint relates to an allegation of a breach of Section 22(1) of the Act and, consequently, is actionable under the impleaded legislation.

Regarding the second preliminary point raised by the Respondent, it is noted that the Complainant returned from maternity leave on 10th January 2022 and availed of accrued annual leave entitlement until her return to employment on 8th March 2022. Thereafter, the present complaint was referred on 27th February 2024, approximately two years following the expiration of the protected leave.

In this regard, Section 6(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 provides that,

“…an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.”

Thereafter, section 6(8) provides that,

“An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause.”

In this regard, the Respondent has submitted that the “date of the contravention to which the complaint relates” could only have occurred during the period of protected leave, and consequently the matter is statute barred on these grounds. By response, the Complainant submitted that the breach complained of, i.e. the failure of the Respondent to apply the increase in salary, persisted to the date of the referral of the complaint and consequently remains in time for the purposes of Section 6(6) above.

Regarding the date of contravention for the purposes of the provision cited above, it is apparent that Section 22 relates to an allegation that an employer allowed an employee that is on maternity leave to incur a detriment, or be denied a benefit, as a consequence of their absence.  The contravention in question for the present matter, being the Respondent’s failure to apply an increase in wages due to the Complainant’s maternity leave, occurred in November 2022 and was confirmed in early 2023.

By submission, the Complainant stated that the effects of the contravention in question were ongoing to the date of referral of the present complaint, and as such, the same should be deemed to be in time for these purposes. In this regard, it is noted that Section 77(6A)(i) of the Employment Equality Act provides that, in relation to the identity of a date of discrimination, the same is said to occur

“…if the act constituting it extends over a period, at the end of the period”

It is noted that Section 6(6) of the Workplace Relation Act 2015 contains no equivalent provision and simply provides for a cognisable period accruing from the date of a contravention itself, rather than the final date of the detriment arising from the contravention.

In these circumstances, I find that the cognisable period for the purposes of the present Act is, even with an extension of time applied, 27th February 2024 to 27th February 2025. In consideration of the finding the alleged contravention to which the complaint relates must have occurred prior to early 2023, I find that no breach occurred within the cognisable period for the present complaint, and the same is duly deemed to be not well-founded. 

I find that the complaint is not well-founded.

Maternity Leave, Absence, Salary Increase, Date of Contravention