Retailer who told pregnant employee to 'appear happy' ordered to pay €18,000 in discrimination case

This follows the Labour Court finding that Kildare town based Clelands Supermarkets Ltd 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 Ms Poslajko was discriminated against.

The Labour Court not only upheld the ruling by the Equality Officer but tripled the Equality Officer’s €6,000 award to €18,000 and also found that Ms Poslajko was victimised against.

In her evidence, Ms Poslajko said that her second pregnancy was confirmed in August 2014 and she advised her supervisor at Clelands, Ms Donnelly, and left a GP’s letter in the office confirming this.

Later that month, the owner of the business, Mr Cleland, called Ms Poslajko to his office and reprimanded her for allegedly making mistakes and advised that she would have to work harder.

At the time, Ms 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, Mr Cleland again called Ms Poslajko into the office and informed her that her weekly hours were to be cut from thirty-nine to twenty-four because she was, in his view, not working as hard as other colleagues.

Ms Poslajko said that Mr Cleland also reprimanded her about her appearance and said she needed to look better and appear happy.

Ms Poslajko went on maternity leave in March 2015.

While on maternity leave, her solicitors wrote to Clelands in July 2015 advising that Ms Poslajko believed that the reductions which Clelands had made to her hours related directly to her pregnancy and, therefore, constituted direct discrimination on the gender ground.

On returning to work In October 2015, Mr Cleland informed Ms 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.

Ms Poslajko told the court that part-time employees were getting more hours than eight hours per week at the time.

Ms Poslajko told the court that eight hours was not enough to support her family and she got alternative employment and resigned from Clelands in March 2016.

In his defence, Mr Cleland told the hearing that he was unaware of Ms Poslajko's pregnancy before November 2014 and, therefore, any disciplinary action and/or reduction in her hours which took place prior to that are unrelated to the pregnancy.

Mr Cleland told the court that he has never had sight of the GP's letter confirming Ms Poslajko’s pregnancy that she left in the office.

In its determination, the court found Ms Poslajko’s evidence to be credible and coherent.

The court also found that it was simply not credible for Mr Cleland to claim that he was unaware of her pregnancy for some months after August 2014 and that he has never had sight of the letter from the GP.

The court found that Clelands had not produced any documentary evidence that demonstrates that it engaged in a bona fides disciplinary process to address alleged underperformance by Ms Poslajko.

The court found that Ms Poslajko has made out a prima facie case that the initial reduction in hours was a consequence of her pregnancy and that Clelands had failed to adduce any evidence that rebuts the claims advanced by Ms Poslajko.