Recruiter ordered to pay woman €20,000 after ‘discrimination’ due to her pregnancy

shtpEdthePlum

Donald Trump wrote: »

Do you still think that if a company organises for someone to fulfil a 6 month role (e.g. cover someone else's maternity leave) and the new temp person also goes on maternity leave very soon after, that the company is obligated to give the temp a different 6 month contract?

That's not the situation here so I have no idea why it's being discussed.

In this situation, the agency could have provided another person to cover the six months and allow the woman to do the other 18 months.

It didn't happen though, so it doesn't actually matter.

I edited the above post you refer to to reflect that the WOMAN would to work for the agreed period, not that the company would owe them a contract.

Meeoow

I'm female, I wouldn't dream of applying for a short contract job if I were pregnant.
I think it is deceitful to accept a job if pregnant, then land it on the employer when the job is accepted.
It's also doing another candidate who is available for the term out of the job.

partyguinness

Reminds me of a former employer recruiting in our place for a admin role.

The employer said at the end (in all seriousness too) to the successful candidate:- "You better not start going off getting pregnant".

It was a woman that said that.

Eric Cartman

Meeoow wrote: »

I'm female, I wouldn't dream of applying for a short contract job if I were pregnant.
I think it is deceitful to accept a job if pregnant, then land it on the employer when the job is accepted.
It's also doing another candidate who is available for the term out of the job.

this is it, its a scummy thing to do.

partyguinness

My wife is self employed. No cushion or full pay to fall back on. She took all of 4 weeks off and that was after a Caesarean too.

statto25

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

That's not the situation here so I have no idea why it's being discussed.

In this situation, the agency could have provided another person to cover the six months and allow the woman to do the other 18 months.

It didn't happen though, so it doesn't actually matter.

I edited the above post you refer to to reflect that the WOMAN would to work for the agreed period, not that the company would owe them a contract.

So twice the admin and twice the training involved because the fact they didnt disclose they were pregnant when they were hired?

shtpEdthePlum

The same thing would happen if the selected candidate fell ill or died.

partyguinness

partyguinness wrote: »

It was a woman that said that.

That would have been my experience too, although not too often. One in particular that would have a profile for being very pro women favoured men all things being equal otherwise, and just to add flavour gave out to me for bringing forward a black girl for interview. 'You don't really know this company'. Same media lovey once spotted a folic acid packet in an employee's waste paper basket and was fuming. Not to the girls face in fairness. I left that role, but not soon enough. Vile person, with a fake public profile.

mrslancaster

Donald Trump wrote: »

Do you perhaps misunderstand the relationship in the "situation at hand" as being an employer/employee relationship?


My post was in response to someone who appears to think that if someone is offered a short term 6-month contract to do a job, and they go on maternity leave for 6 months instead, that they would be entitled to a different 6 months (in their example)


The use of different mechanisms by eventual employers to avoid employer/employee obligations is a different topic again. 23 months would appear to me to be a deliberate timeframe to avoid some other obligations. That is a different topic.

just curious (for my own info) but what other obligations do you mean for the 23 months,
Was the job for a direct employee of the client company or an agency worker employed by the recruiter?

Eric Cartman

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

The same thing would happen if the selected candidate fell ill or died.

except those are unforeseen , generally people these days know when they're pregnant, especially in the short term.

statto25

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

The same thing would happen if the selected candidate fell ill or died.

A candidate cannot predict sudden death or illness, even unplanned pregnancy. However a pregnant woman can predict pregnancy, because she is pregnant when taking the role

fits

Meeoow wrote: »

I'm female, I wouldn't dream of applying for a short contract job if I were pregnant.
I think it is deceitful to accept a job if pregnant, then land it on the employer when the job is accepted.
It's also doing another candidate who is available for the term out of the job.

In my sector they are all contract jobs. You actually couldn’t apply for anything.

And I’m speaking as someone who did a full year leave after my boys were born with no benefit or pay.

partyguinness

Deleted User wrote: »

That would have been my experience too, although not too often. One in particular that would have a profile for being very pro women favoured men all things being equal otherwise, and just to add flavour gave out to me for bringing forward a black girl for interview. 'You don't really know this company'. Same media lovey once spotted a folic acid packet in an employee's waste paper basket and was fuming. Not to the girls face in fairness. I left that role, but not soon enough. Vile person, with a fake public profile.

Well, there were very good reasons why the Catholic Church in Ireland historically only employed housekeepers, how shall I put it...past child bearing age...;)

Kidchameleon

This kind of crap hurts women in the long run. Business is business, it is there to make a profit, not to massage your "feels". Becoming pregnant is a decision, if you want to work, don't become pregnant. If you don't have a partner to provide for you whilst pregnant, then don't become pregnant. Ill thought out regulations like this make businesses less likely to hire women.

shtpEdthePlum

Or like every other European county we could just accept that the continuation of the species is both necessary and a human right and facilitate in the one gender who does it the act of pushing a new human being out into the world and also assist them in supporting the baby?

This isn't new.

partyguinness

partyguinness wrote: »

Well, there were very good reasons why the Catholic Church in Ireland historically only employed housekeepers, how shall I put it...past child bearing age...;)

Because they make good cups of tea?

This whole thing is tricky. Women do get pregnant and obviously deserve shots at employment. This compo case seems contrived. How do you bring sensibleness into it though. From an employers POV (male or female) they will consider a pregnant lady at a disadvantage at interview because you're baking in issues in advance.

On the other hand, I'd have no issues with a girl being pregnant and applying for the role and proving themselves being worth the extra hassle. Just don't tell the agency/employer in advance. Prove they didn't err by being a bloody good employee. Swan in and do minimum and take the benefits and you really are letting down other girls that may follow. Its legal, but a crap thing to do.

shtpEdthePlum

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Because they make good cups of tea?

This whole thing is tricky. Women do get pregnant and obviously deserve shots at employment. This compo case seems contrived. How do you bring sensibleness into it though. From an employers POV (male or female) they will consider a pregnant lady at a disadvantage at interview because you're baking in issues in advance.

On the other hand, I'd have no issues with a girl being pregnant and applying for the role and proving themselves being worth the extra hassle. Just don't tell the agency/employer in advance. Prove they didn't err by being a bloody good employee. Swan in and do minimum and take the benefits and you really are letting down other girls that may follow. Its legal, but a crap thing to do.

They didn't even get the chance to do that in this case as the recruitment agency decided pregnancy precluded them from being offered the job! Dead right to be given compensation in this instance to deter any agencies from making this mistake.

Also, in fairness, to highlight to pregnant women that this will be a consideration they make so to keep your pregnancy quiet.

In most jobs (esp with additional maternity benefits) there will be conditions that you have to have worked a certain length of time before you're entitled to anything except the state benefit.

I just started my job and I am currently doing a probationary contract. I'll have that suspended and resumed again after the allowed leave if I become pregnant during it.

It would be very inconvenient for my employer but their need for understanding and compassion for somebody giving birth has to literally be enshrined in law because of people who think like many of those who have posted here. As though their own mothers didn't give birth to them or something.

BTW women were made quit their jobs when they had a family up until recently. Maybe we should go back to having a society where women could actually survive if they did that.

partyguinness

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

Or like every other European county we could just accept that the continuation of the species is both necessary and a human right and facilitate in the one gender who does it the act of pushing a new human being out into the world and also assist them in supporting the baby?

This isn't new.

Where does Ireland not accept the continuation of the species is both necessary and a human right...you may do well to familiarise yourself with the 1937 Constitution and the many Supreme Court decisions...in fact there are whole sections dedicated specifically to the "Family", "Education" and "Children".

Now and unlike you, I am not famailiar with pregnancy rights in "...every other European country..." but perhaps in the interests of shedding light on the matter you might tell us how **** Ireland is compared to "...every other European country..." Bearing in mind that is close to 50 different States, your knowledge must be indeed both wide and impressive.

Seriously what is your agenda and this whole repeated werid reference to "... pushing out human being..."

shtpEdthePlum

partyguinness wrote: »

Where does Ireland not accept the continuation of the species is both necessary and a human right...you may do well to familiarise yourself with the 1937 Constitution and the many Supreme Court decisions...in fact there are whole sections dedicated specifically to the "Family", "Education" and "Children".

Now and unlike you, I am not famailiar with pregnancy rights in "...every other European country..." but perhaps in the interests of shedding light on the matter you might tell us how **** Ireland is compared to "...every other European country..." Bearing in mind that is close to 50 different States, your knowledge must be indeed both wide comprehensive and impressive.

Seriously what is your agenda and this whole repeated werid reference to "... pushing out human being..."

Several of my friends have emigrated and have families.

One recently completed a Masters in the Netherlands and was scouted straight out of university. She was eight months pregnant at the time and is on her 5th month of maternity leave now, having worked for one month so far.

Already she has been offered flexi-time to facilitate caring for her new daughter.

Just to note, her husband gets the same leave as her and was also offered assistance in accommodating childminding.

They will pay about €15 each day for childcare if they want to send their daughter to creche.

Pushing out a human being reference is because some men feel that they have equal say on this matter. They don't. They don't and can't physically perform the act of giving birth thus their understanding and sympathy is limited and thus needs to be given less value in the discussion.

Donald Trump

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

I edited the above post you refer to to reflect that the WOMAN would to work for the agreed period, not that the company would owe them a contract.

Ok. Fair enough. I had read it the other way around and thought you meant the company would owe them. That was the confusion



No harm done. It is clear now.

shtpEdthePlum

Donald Trump wrote: »

Ok. Fair enough. I had read it the other way around and thought you meant the company would owe them. That was the confusion



No harm done. It is clear now.

I appreciate the explanation, thanks for clearing that up. That would indeed have been completely irrational of me to say

shtpEdthePlum

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

BTW women were made quit their jobs when they had a family up until recently. Maybe we should go back to having a society where women could actually survive if they did that.

Recently? 1973 isn't recent. Most people on boards.ie weren't even born then.


And people have very good social protection in this country. And, no. This compo case will hurt women. Agencies and employers will just be more careful about the truth. And again, this case highlights something that is negative.

shtpEdthePlum

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

Pushing out a human being reference is because some men feel that they have equal say on this matter. They don't. They don't and can't physically perform the act of giving birth thus their understanding and sympathy is limited and thus needs to be given less value in the discussion.

How is this relevant, can you give a practical example for discussion?

partyguinness

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

Several of my friends have emigrated and have families.

One recently completed a Masters in the Netherlands and was scouted straight out of university. She was eight months pregnant at the time and is on her 5th month of maternity leave now, having worked for one month so far.

Already she has been offered flexi-time to facilitate caring for her new daughter.

Just to note, her husband gets the same leave as her and was also offered assistance in accommodating childminding.

They will pay about €15 each day for childcare if they want to send their daughter to creche.

You said every other European Country. The Netherlands is but one...So you have a friend in a cushy number in the Netherlands and that's your stick to beat the entire country with...that's it then? Maybe you let your emotions get in the way and exaggerated a tad. That's ok.

The issue for employers especially small employers is just the sheer hassle and cost. It is not some evil vendetta against pregnant women. It is not even so much as the money. But the hassle of finding a replacement and training them up...and the danger with Agency workers is that some really don't give a crap.

Plus don't forget if you have to go through an Agency you will have to 2-3 times the rate. The Agency gets paid.

If the employee is paid say, €10.00 per hour, the employer is paying the Agency €20.00 per hour plus a 'Finder's Fee' which will often be a percentage of the annual salary (15-20% in my experience) and that is if you can even get someone in the first place.

Donald Trump

mrslancaster wrote: »

just curious (for my own info) but what other obligations do you mean for the 23 months,

I don't know what the obligations might be specifically. I just thought that it was a very specific term and I would suspect that after 2 years that some other rights would kick in. 23 months would allow them to bypass those obligations.



There was a change made to the employment laws here about 15-20 years ago to give protections to people who, at that time, were basically being denied rights by employers who would give new 364 day contracts every year (or it might have been one-day-less-than-2-year). At the end of the contract, the company would let them go and rehire them again the next day on a new contract to do the same job.



It used to be that the clock would reset. Now it doesn't reset like that. I would imagine that some rights/obligations kick in at 2 years which is why they would want to take someone on for only 23 months.

Meeoow

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

Several of my friends have emigrated and have families.

One recently completed a Masters in the Netherlands and was scouted straight out of university. She was eight months pregnant at the time and is on her 5th month of maternity leave now, having worked for one month so far.

I would assume that if she were 8 months pregnant, then the employer knew when offering her the job, that she was pregnant, which is fair enough.

Strumms

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

The comments in here are absolutely vile.

You'd swear the stork brings the baby, in some of the feeble minds on display here.

How the hell are women supposed to actually survive when Irish men are like this. You people actually disgust me. In any other developed country there wouldn't be such begrudgery that you lack the ability to push an actual other human person out of your body. I'll ask again, how the actual f are women supposed to live in a country where a load of the opposite sex are jealous of their reproductive abilities and believe they should be punished.

In Ireland, pregnancy is treated like a massive inconvenience. Like in America where human life is regarded as commonplace and not worthy of any protections, in Ireland we have historically put mothers and babies in septic tanks and prioritised profit over people.

Almost everyone who replied to this thread so far showed jealousy, hatred and spite. Are you related to any women? What if she needed a job and the agency wouldn't give her information to Facebook or whoever, because they didn't want the massive corporation to have the inconvenience of employing her during maternity leave, enabling her to support her newborn baby? Would you think it's completely acceptable if it was your wife or sister or daughter who was discriminated against on this basis?

I don't know why I do it to myself going on these threads, but I just feel glad not to know any horrible people who think that pregnant women are like scroungers. What a sh!t opinion. Take a look at yourself.

She was applying for a 23 month contract. She if my understanding is correct is entitled to 26 weeks maternity leave... So she is applying for a job, knowingly pregnant and will of the 23 month contract be absent for at least 6.5 months.... this is not including time off for scans and other appointments....so she will be unable to fulfill about 33% of her contract.. still should be awarded a position she can’t fulfill ?

The company needs to pay to provide temp cover, needs to enable the actually active and current staff as well as customers to get the help and support they need...

Why would a company wish to hire somebody to work and do a job when it’s known to this person and the company in advance that she will only be of the ability to work about 65% of the hours / time required... in their contract?

They have to then pay to hire, train, pay a temp in addition... that cash doesn’t come out of thin air... that can affect pay rises for other staff, office upgrades etc..

So if you are applying for or starting a job whilst knowingly pregnant.. unless the immaculate conception is a thing... it’s on YOU. Your choices, your body... your life....

Im a hiring boss in that situation, down to loyalty to current staff, customers and business... I’d simply be informing them that they haven’t been successful but I’d be happy to have their cv on file, in a year 18 months we’d see...

partyguinness

partyguinness wrote: »

My wife is self employed. No cushion or full pay to fall back on. She took all of 4 weeks off and that was after a Caesarean too.

And what?

irelandrover

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

Several of my friends have emigrated and have families.

One recently completed a Masters in the Netherlands and was scouted straight out of university. She was eight months pregnant at the time and is on her 5th month of maternity leave now, having worked for one month so far.

Already she has been offered flexi-time to facilitate caring for her new daughter.

Just to note, her husband gets the same leave as her and was also offered assistance in accommodating childminding.

They will pay about €15 each day for childcare if they want to send their daughter to creche.

Pushing out a human being reference is because some men feel that they have equal say on this matter. They don't. They don't and can't physically perform the act of giving birth thus their understanding and sympathy is limited and thus needs to be given less value in the discussion.

she was recruited when they knew she was pregnant. They knew she wouldn't start for 6 months so that's not the same at all.

Men and women in the Netherlands don't have the same leave. women get 16 weeks paid maternity leave, men get a week and then 5 weeks at 70% of their wage. both have rights to unpaid paternity leave.

The company pay for childcare? i have never heard of that in 12 years of working in the Netherland. Normal daycare here costs about €90 a day.

Strumms

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

The woman will owe the company the six months they took when their maternity leave is up.

You honestly think the woman can just walk in, take maternity leave and then never fulfil the contract?

Also the state pays for maternity leave in that instance so the company is literally losing nothing and will have a panel of replacements.

I think it's a misunderstanding of actual contracts and pay that has some of you petals unsettled.

Owe them 6 months ? The work isn’t going to sit around undone waiting for her... by virtue of this being a temporary contract it’s not rolling work and her position was in all likelihood to work on fulfilling a specific time definite contract for a client.