Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
A SHOP OWNER who reprimanded a pregnant employee about her appearance and said that she needed to look better and appear happy has been ordered to pay €18,000 in a pregnancy discrimination case.
This follows the Labour Court finding that Kildare town-based Clelands Supermarkets Ltd must pay Karolina Poslajko €12,000 for gender discrimination and an additional €6,000 for victimisation.
The case came before the Labour Court after Clelands appealed a ruling by an equality officer who found that Poslajko was discriminated against.
However, the Labour Court not only upheld the ruling by the equality officer but tripled the initial €6,000 award to €18,000 and also found that Poslajko was victimised.
In her evidence, Poslajko said that her second pregnancy was confirmed in August 2014 and she advised her supervisor at Clelands and left a GP’s letter in the office confirming this.
Later that month, the owner of the business called Poslajko to his office and reprimanded her for allegedly making mistakes and advised that she would have to work harder.
Morning sickness
At the time, Poslajko told the Labour Court that she was suffering from morning sickness and was often uncomfortable sitting at the check-out.
A number of weeks after that meeting, the owner again called Poslajko into the office and informed her that her weekly hours were to be cut from 39 to 24 because she was, in his view, not working as hard as other colleagues.
Poslajko said that the owner also reprimanded her about her appearance and said she needed to look better and appear happy.
Poslajko went on maternity leave in March 2015. Her solicitors wrote to Clelands in July 2015 advising that Poslajko believed that the reductions which the shop had made to her hours related directly to her pregnancy and, therefore, constituted direct discrimination on the grounds of gender.
On returning to work in October 2015, the owner informed Poslajko that her hours were being reduced again and that because the business was not performing she would only have eight hours’ work per week.
Poslajko told the court that other part-time employees were getting more hours than eight hours per week at the time.
Unaware
She said that eight hours wasn’t enough to support her family and she got alternative employment and resigned from Clelands in March 2016.
In his defence, the owner told the hearing that he was unaware of Poslajko’s pregnancy before November 2014 and, therefore, any disciplinary action or reduction in her hours which took place prior to that are unrelated to the pregnancy.
He told the court that he had never had sight of the GP’s letter confirming Poslajko’s pregnancy.
In its determination, the court found Poslajko’s evidence to be credible and coherent.
The court also found that it was simply not credible for the owner to claim that he was unaware of her pregnancy for some months after August 2014 and that he had never had sight of the letter from the GP.
The court found that Clelands had not produced any documentary evidence that demonstrated that it engaged in a bona fide disciplinary process to address alleged underperformance by Poslajko.
It found that she had made a prima facie case that the initial reduction in hours was a consequence of her pregnancy and that Clelands has failed to adduce any evidence that rebuts the claims advanced.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
If you have morning sickness and you can’t work, you need to take sick leave. It’s not up to the employer to cover your hours. She was working at a checkpoint so pregnancy should have no problem . This seems like a grossly unfair settlement.
@john Appleseed: oh you have been pregnant before have you? I had morning sickness for 13 weeks should i have taken that time off, dont be absurd? I was only getting sick few times a day so I wasnt missing much time so I would say this girl was the same so no need to take leave. The settlement is on the high side but it sets an example for other companies to treat their employee’s correct.
@john Appleseed: why don’t you give correct name. Did you have a gender change
@john Appleseed: weird, why did you decide to change gender “John”?
@john Appleseed:
I’ve had morning sickness with all my pregnancies. Needed up in hospital for a week with my first one which I took 5 days sick leave.
Most employers are accommodating for the couple of extra toilet breaks a woman with morning sickness needs. It amounts to about 10 minutes a Day. No major affect on work performance.
You hear loads saying pregnancy isn’t an illness. No it’s not, yet it can be exhausting. But you plod on regardless. You have no choice, only the ones who are severely suffering and whose baby at risk go on sick leave.
Either that or it should come into law that every pregnant woman goes on sick leave for 9months before the baby is born.
@john Appleseed: __ I used to have morning sickness until I gave up the drink. I feel your pain John.
@Lily: most women only get pregnant 2 or 3 times in their lives. Men get man flu 2 or 3 times a year! Life is cruel Lily, just so unfair.
@Etherman: Do they take 9 months sick leave each time?
The laws are there to protect the rights of a pregnant woman. In this case they were upheld and the woman compensated for the discrimination and injustice she received from her former employer.
@Lily: 10 minutes or so in total should be and with most reasonable people is. A lot of smokers take 10 minutes on multiple occasions throughout the day officially and unofficially.
Money for nothing.Its an absolute minefield for employers nowadays.The tripling of the original award was just petty.
@Tedser: it was justified. They call reducing hours as a constructive dismissal tool used by employers.
@Paul Coughlan: so an employer can’t reduce an employees hours.Tail is wagging the dog so.
@Tedser: Of course they can, as long as the reduction is fair and not deisciminatory.
@Tedser: they Ppealed the decision and lost out. It’s their own greed and fault
@Tedser: and that is why as an employer I prefer not to employ women there are just too many chances I will get caught in some paperwork that catches me out
@Mary Murphy: And its attitudes like yours that make it hard for women to earn a good income.
I once went for an interview with a couple of guys and a coupke of girls i worked with in my last job. Me and one other girl had full qualifications and i had the most experience in the field at just over 4 years. The two fellas had less than six minths each. On paper, and if i had been given the chance, in person, i was a fantastic candidate for the job. Only the two guys got interview offers. My manager was shocked when i didnt hear anytjing from them. Not even a decline to interview. The other two gurls were the same. They heard nothing.
I wouldnt be surprised it it was because i was female and of childbearing age (didnt give my date of birth, but information in my cv did indicate i was in my 20s).. Heres the thing, though. Pregnancy is never gonna happen. EVER!
Attitudes like yours then effect women like me who are trying to live happy, independent lives, whilst able to support themselves in an increasingly expensive world.
I left my old industry because of a number of reasons, but having my cv showing years of experience ignored, whilst men i knew with a coupke of months got the job was really disheartening. And my cv was definitely not the problem as i had it checked out by a professional before sumitting it to companies.
@Mirabelle Stonegate: I am a female and experienced the same problems you speak about as an employee. However as an employer the labour laws are a minefield and it is extremely difficult to get rid of someone of either sex who is underperforming. A female employee is even more difficult than a male…so I just play percentages. It is a sad indictment of the law that I am forced to do these things but I have no choice…the law is an ass
@Tedser: Employers don’t OWN their employees.
@Mary Murphy: Always the same response Mary, “and that is why I don’t employ women” .It strikes me that, with that attitude not many women would want to work for you.
Serves the employer right.
They were employing staff on zero hours contracts so deserve to be punished for this
Any employer who cannot afford living wages and conditions to staff should not be in business.
@Colin Morris: thanks comrade.
@Colin Morris: next time you are in your local mini-market, be sure to offer up an additional 10% at the checkout. If they try to refuse, you must insist
@Cicero: the problem lies with the supermarket using minimum wage, zero hours contracts.
Employers like these absolutely deserve to be sued whenever possible.
@Colin Morris: get back to me after starting up your own small business and we will continue this discussion…….
Hours reduced to eight per week? You would get fed up of hearing people taking others to court but that really seems like trying to force someone out of a job.
The headline is misleading. The case was not based on the one “smile more” incident alone, and this person clearly made a solid case for discrimination. The terminology of the headline was chosen to incense people who are (understandably) sick of compo culture and those who aren’t yet sick of the battle of the sexes.
I must be psychic, I knew when I read the headline that the winner’s name would not be some name like Murphy or O’Malley.
Boy, they really have us outsmarted.
@roscommonman: they?????
@Liz Gallagher: Here Liz, this might help with your comprehension of basic English words.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/they
@roscommonman: Vile remarks.
It looks like these men have been pregnant a lot! Idiots. Puking your guts out for weeks might have a toll on your appearance. You can’t take sick leave for 9 months. Grow up. Not everybody has an enjoyable pregnancy.
@María Eugenia Baiardi: at least one of those men (hi John) has had a sudden sex change in the last few minutes. John is now a woman.
@Áine Foley: even if I was a man, which I’m not. This really has nothing to do with pregnancy. The woman was sick and unable to perform her duties. She should have been on sick leave. Pregnancy is a choice, you should be prepared for the financial burden associated with it.
@Arfer Daly: I said these men referring to the idiots commenting on the article. Not all men. There is a huge difference.
@john Appleseed: I’m glad you don’t have that choice then. I’m sure smokers had more ciggie breaks and looked less presentable.
@john Appleseed: it has everything to do with pregnancy. Everyone’s pregnancy is different. When I was expecting my first I suffered with morning sickness. It wasn’t constant though. I’d be fine, then I would be sick and then fine again. Yes I wasn’t able to perform as well as if I wasn’t pregnant but that doesn’t mean I should have taken sick leave as I could still perform my duties. Taking sick leave would be taking the p**s. There are laws to protect women in the workplace during pregnancy for a reason.
Whether or not being pregnant is the cause of this event. if a customer is meet by a glum face through no fault of their own. A boss should be able to advise his staff on proper appearance and behaviour. If the lady in question isn’t well enough she should sign on the sick. The owner has a responsibility to ensure his / her business is regarded highly by customers. Staff who portray any condition as an excuse to let standards slip should be corrected.
I presume this is what every burrito shop worker is called. The incessant upbeat attitude has to be mandatory.
I’d say it was more to do with the fact that they didn’t follow the proper disciplinary procedures..
It’s the shops fault for hiring young woman who are just looking for an excuse to sue,easy money
@Paul O Faolain: Does your statemwnt appkie to all women of childbearing age, or just non-irish ones?
@Mirabelle Stonegate: *statement *apply.. Ugh sorry
Ireland really is going down the tubes. If someone is unable to carry out their duties, whether through pregnancy or something else they shouldn’t be at work. The discrimination is happening to the other employees who are being treated less favourably.
have your say