01 561 3594
€68,000 Award of Compensation for Demotion on Return from Maternity Leave
Background

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent from June 2018 until she resigned her employment in March 2024. The Complainant was employed as a Marketing Manager. The Complainant alleged that she was not notified in writing of changes to her terms of employment and that she was discriminated against on the grounds of gender.

The Respondent denied the allegations and stated that the Complainant was not discriminated against.

Summary of Complainant’s Case

The Complainant reported directly to Manager 1. Her role was filled while the Complainant was on maternity leave by Employee 1. The Complainant submitted that at the time of her resignation her basic salary was €68,113.55 excluding the bonuses and other contributions.

The Complainant submitted that the Respondent advertised for maternity cover for the Complainant’s position and that this was a contract for 12 months to cover the maternity leave and that this was expressly stated in the position as advertised. The Complainant further submitted that at all material times, she adhered to the company’s maternity policy and that upon her return to employment after approximately one year and 21 days, she was demoted from her position of Marketing Manager to that of Portfolio Department Lead.

The Complainant submitted that she was discriminated by the Respondent on the grounds of gender. The Complainant’s representative submitted that “but for the Complainant availing of maternity leave, she would not have been demoted.”

Summary of Respondent’s Case

The Respondent submitted the following sequence of events:

  • In December 2022, the Complainant commenced a period of leave. This was the Complainant’s second period of maternity leave (no issue was raised regarding the Complainant’s return to work following her first period of maternity leave). The Respondent noted in the Complainant’s submission that the Complainant advised the Respondent in November 2023 that she would be returning to work from her period of maternity leave in January 2024.
  • Prior to the commencement of maternity leave, the Complainant’s key responsibilities comprised of planning and ensuring execution in the market of the marketing plans for various brands, reporting to Manager 1.
  • Over time, including the almost thirteen-month period the Complainant was on maternity leave, the role expanded to include more brands, larger event planning (such as summer festival campaigns) and greater communication and liaison with the Respondent’s licenced trade sales team, due to the COVID restrictions ending. In addition, there had been a significant increase in stakeholder management with brand partners. Manager 1 was concerned that capacity issues in the team were having a negative impact, and in September 2023, he submitted a business case for one additional FTE to work with Manager 3’s team.
  • The Respondent operated frequent Employee engagement with his Employees. As surveys indicated that there were performance issues in the Complainant’s team, a revised team structure and allocation of responsibilities were developed.
  • It was common case that the Complainant was advised prior to her notified return to work date, that her title and reporting structure would change. While there was some dispute between the parties about precisely what was discussed on the call, it is not in dispute that the Complainant received a verbal overview of the position she would be returning to and its reporting structure during the call.

The Respondent submitted that it was also Manager 1’s position that he and the Complainant had discussed the growing challenges of the workload associated with the role on several occasions prior to her commencing her maternity leave and the further growth outlined by him at their meeting, was not challenged by the Complainant. It was also Manager 1’s position that the proposed split of the role was not presented as a fait accompli and was very much presented as an opportunity for discussion with the Complainant.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant did not take issue with the proposed split at the meeting. The Respondent noted that while the Complainant had voiced some reservations on the call, the call concluded with the Complainant indicating that she trusted him that the role would be a good development opportunity for her, liked the idea of developing her knowledge in the Coffee category and was “going to give the role a go.”

Findings and Conclusions

The Adjudicator noted that the following matters were not in dispute:

  • That the Complainant was employed as a Marketing Manager prior to commencement of her maternity leave.
  • That she made efforts to contact her manager in relation to her return to work but initially these received no response.
  • That she was due to return to work in January 2024 and that she was contacted by phone by her line manager, Manager 1 in January 2024 and advised that the post of Marketing Manager was to be split into two components: with duties relating to trade marketing for premium spirits and coffee brands to move to a new role of Portfolio Department Lead
  • That the remainder of the role of Marketing Manager would continue to be carried out by the Employee hired for the maternity cover.
  • That a broad outline of the new role was given by Manager 1 during that phone call and that a job description for the role was ultimately emailed to the Complainant at end of business on her first day back at work.

The complaint submitted by the Complainant centred on the change of role outlined above.

The Adjudicator also concluded:

  • That the move to the new post constituted a demotion for the Complainant.
  • That the Respondent had already decided that the Complainant would move to the new role upon her return from maternity leave and that there was no intention to provide her with options.
  • That the change of role was, in fact, a fait accompli.
  • That there was no business imperative or requirement to put the Complainant in that new role.
  • That there was no immediate imperative to make any change to the Complainant’s role upon her return from maternity leave.

The Adjudicator was left in no doubt that the impact of this sequence of events on the Complainant as she returned from maternity leave exacerbated the sense of not being “welcomed back” to her substantive role and left her with a sense of being “forced out.”

Taking all the above into account, the Adjudicator concluded that the Complainant was discriminated against on the ground of gender by not being returned to her position following maternity leave as set out in Section 26 of the Maternity Protection Acts and by her being demoted by the Respondent.

Decision

The Adjudicator concluded that the Complainant was discriminated against on the ground of gender and directed the Respondent to pay €68,000 in compensation.

Recommendations

In this Case, the Respondent restructured the Complainant’s team while she was on maternity leave.

Despite frequent WRC findings against Organisations who fail to comply with the Maternity Protection Act, Employers continue to miscalculate the risk of breaching the Employee’s right to return to the same role they previously enjoyed prior to taking maternity leave.

The high level of compensation serves as a clear reminder of the importance of having an appropriate Maternity Leave Policy in place to ensure that both management and Employees are clear on their rights and entitlements.