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

Eric Cartman

Trying to hid a pregnancy starting a job knowing youll leave an employer in a hole for months is such a scummy thing to do, so many abuse laws to make an employer or the state bankroll their pregnancy

Melanchthon

Eric Cartman wrote: »

A recruiter I know says his least favourite job to try and hire for is one with a 'full pay' maternity package, you'll get hundreds of applications from women who are visibly pregnant hoping to just work for 2 months and take off 6+ at full pay.

Hmmm I thought those roles only gave the paid maternity leave after a year to 6 months or so of employment?

Eric Cartman

Melanchthon wrote: »

Hmmm I thought those roles only gave the paid maternity leave after a year to 6 months or so of employment?

A lot of american companies have been naive in this, but that is now common as a way to prevent such abuses

jrosen

Melanchthon wrote: »

Hmmm I thought those roles only gave the paid maternity leave after a year to 6 months or so of employment?

Most companies would have that clause in the contracts.

partyguinness

Melanchthon wrote: »

Hmmm I thought those roles only gave the paid maternity leave after a year to 6 months or so of employment?

I recall a conversation amoing my wife's friends a few years back where one of them had to hang on for a period of time in her new role before trying to get pregnant. While perfectly legal it is still a bit contrived.

It is something every employer has to factor in.

Smee_Again

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Trying to hid a pregnancy starting a job knowing youll leave an employer in a hole for months is such a scummy thing to do, so many abuse laws to make an employer or the state bankroll their pregnancy

Eric you need to stay in your lane. Usually you're the first to knock those on welfare saying they should get a job and now when they do try you call them scummy.

And she didn’t hide the fact she was pregnant, she was open about it.

mrslancaster

Smee_Again wrote: »

Eric you need to stay in your lane. Usually you're the first to knock those on welfare saying they should get a job and now when they do try you call them scummy.

And she didn’t hide the fact she was pregnant, she was open about it.

Maybe a shorter term contract would have been the best option if she knew she wouldnt be available for 23months.

TheCrank

Did anybody bother to read the full article?

"It said it was mentioned that the 23-month role would involve six to nine months of training. The agency argued that following this, the recruiter reviewed the job description for the role and found she did not meet three of the four skills or experience level required."

So she was completely unsuited to the role. Best case scenario she would have completed training and managed a few weeks actual work before going on maternity, leaving the employer to hire and possibly have to spend months training another person. Then she would have arrived back in just as the second person was fully trained.

I'd love to know what the job was. That's lot of training.

partyguinness

TheCrank wrote: »

Did anybody bother to read the full article?

"It said it was mentioned that the 23-month role would involve six to nine months of training. The agency argued that following this, the recruiter reviewed the job description for the role and found she did not meet three of the four skills or experience level required."

.

I'd say that was the Agency backtracking like an Italian tank to ward off the claim.

partyguinness

partyguinness wrote: »

I'd say that was the Agency backtracking like an Italian tank to ward off the claim.

Ohh. What the F***?

partyguinness

Deleted User wrote: »

Ohh. What the F***?

It is an expression. Italian tanks in WWII were mocked for spending more time going backwards i.e. retreating than going forward.

You're welcome.

jrosen

She has really played a blinder here, all this does is hurt women in the workforce. She was not available to work for 23 months which is what the contract required. So what the employer is expected to hire her only in May to start the process all over again. Its ridiculous.

wally1990

partyguinness wrote: »

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.

Jesus Christ,
What is with some people

MrMusician18

Deleted User wrote: »

In my best panto voice: "Oh no they won't".



She will have a difficult time landing any future serious jobs, I'd imagine though, once any prospective employer googles her fairly unique name and this story pops up.

There's the right to be forgotten, so she can have this removed from search results in a year or so of she so desires

runawaybishop

MrMusician18 wrote: »

There's the right to be forgotten, so she can have this removed from search results in a year or so of she so desires

It's not that simple. None of the information is incorrect and the paper would argue it is in the public interest. Gdpr isn't a carte blanche to have all info removed.

mohawk

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Trying to hid a pregnancy starting a job knowing youll leave an employer in a hole for months is such a scummy thing to do, so many abuse laws to make an employer or the state bankroll their pregnancy

It’s very easy to make judgments on a situation that will never affect you. Any woman I have known who didn’t disclose a pregnancy prior to starting a new job did it because they needed to work. Peoples circumstances can change. Baby’s cost money and sometimes one wage isn’t enough when there is rent/mortgage and bills to pay.
Some industries are all contract work. Industry that I am has increasingly gone the contractor route since I left college.
Sometimes women have to put themselves first so they can have a family.

MrMusician18

MrMusician18 wrote: »

There's the right to be forgotten, so she can have this removed from search results in a year or so of she so desires

There's a picture of her, which suggests she got paid for it. She'll have signed a contract. It will mean it won't be allowed to be forgotten.

Strumms

mohawk wrote: »

It’s very easy to make judgments on a situation that will never affect you. Any woman I have known who didn’t disclose a pregnancy prior to starting a new job did it because they needed to work. Peoples circumstances can change. Baby’s cost money and sometimes one wage isn’t enough when there is rent/mortgage and bills to pay.
Some industries are all contract work. Industry that I am has increasingly gone the contractor route since I left college.
Sometimes women have to put themselves first so they can have a family.

So my business could suffer, My business is further out of pocket because a person ‘has to work’ ? Babys cost money true.. that’s an employers or potential employers problem ?... so if you decide to get yourself pregnant, which takes more effort then pouring a glass of milk... a private company should be left out of pocket because of it, even though you don’t yet work there ?

Strumms

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

The 'courts' had absolutely nothing to do with this at all. Read the report:

"She has since been awarded €20,000 by the Workplace Relations Commission.

Adjudication officer Gaye Cunningham"

Workplace relations commission is an appellate body OF the Labour Court

Strumms

Strumms wrote: »

Workplace relations commission is an appellate body OF the Labour Court

No its not. Its the other way round.

The Workplace relations commission is nto a court and its not a Judge that sits.

Strumms

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

No its not. Its the other way round.

The Workplace relations commission is nto a court and its not a Judge that sits.

I never said that a judge sat anywhere. It’s not a court, I never maintained it was. You are incorrect.

Antares35

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.

Plus most contracts will stipulate a required term of service before they will give you a penny. In mine it was something like a years continual service before the 25th week or something. You can't just walk into a job then walk out again with a baby, or you can but you'll be scratching around in the dirt on 245 a week

Tell me how

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.

This is completely the wrong position to take. Completely.
Performing the act of childbirth is one thing, but there is way more that goes in to having children and both parties are entitled to opinion on discussions as to how society supports this.

And I say that as someone who thinks that the fine in this case was warranted because of the admission of her exclusion for consideration being because of her pregnancy. It is tough for the company and person involved who did this but the WRC took the open goal they were offered and handed out a stiff warning associated with discriminating in this way.

It is tough for companies to deal with these issues but it is better for society that we have such laws.

pwurple

I’d love if men also were forced to step up and take their paternity leave. Even better if it was equal to women in duration and pay.

That would solve so much.

karlitob

Eric Cartman wrote: »

childless women do absolutely fine. There are many women only take 6-8 weeks off for a pregnancy , nobody has issue with that , but there are people who take the absoloute piss and employers are wary.

I don’t know any woman who didn’t take the full 6 months leave. I would imagine only those who couldn’t survive on the state maternity benefit.

What’s taking the ‘absolute piss’, as you so eloquently misspelled, with respect to maternity benefit. You do know that everyone benefits from it. Not least the child but also the fathers of those children who know their most precious commodity is being cared for by second most precious commodity. Though I suppose that depends on the child and the mother.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

A recruiter I know says his least favourite job to try and hire for is one with a 'full pay' maternity package, you'll get hundreds of applications from women who are visibly pregnant hoping to just work for 2 months and take off 6+ at full pay.

I’m not sure your point here.
Obviously women would want to do that. You get your state maternity benefit entitlements and then some security with a job at the end of your leave to go back to. Companies are free to have a clause stating that they need to work x amount of time before entitled to full pay benefits. Though - like you - I know nothing about employment law.
Do these women care if your buddy has to work harder? That’s his job.
The logical follow on from your point is that pregnant women shouldn’t be entitled to full maternity benefit or at least until some time has elapsed where women work non-pregnant. Presumably you’ll decide this time period. And you’ll ensure compliance by expecting women to be celibate or use contraception.

jrosen

pwurple wrote: »

I’d love if men also were forced to step up and take their paternity leave. Even better if it was equal to women in duration and pay.

That would solve so much.

It wouldnt solve this particular problem though.

Strumms

Tell me how wrote: »

This is completely the wrong position to take. Completely.
Performing the act of childbirth is one thing, but there is way more that goes in to having children and both parties are entitled to opinion on discussions as to how society supports this.

And I say that as someone who thinks that the fine in this case was warranted because of the admission of her exclusion for consideration being because of her pregnancy. It is tough for the company and person involved who did this but the WRC took the open goal they were offered and handed out a stiff warning associated with discriminating in this way.

It is tough for companies to deal with these issues but it is better for society that we have such laws.

Was she discriminated against. ? Or overlooked for a position because she was pregnant at the time of applying therefore just simply unable in the short - medium term to commit to joining their company and performing the role urgently required of them... ?

karlitob

pwurple wrote: »

I’d love if men also were forced to step up and take their paternity leave. Even better if it was equal to women in duration and pay.

That would solve so much.

Not sure what you think it would solve.

What benefit to the family do you see forced paternity leave have? Forcing only those men who have built sufficient prsi credits to reduce the family income. There isn’t even forced maternity leave. But you think forced paternity leave would sort much.

And not only is forced good - but even better if the forced leave was equal is rate and duration to maternity leave. So employers would have to pay a full salary of 1 year (6 months to the women and 6 to the man).

If I time it just right, if the moon cycle is perfect, families might get double the salary for half the work.

Tell me how

Eric Cartman wrote: »

childless women do absolutely fine. There are many women only take 6-8 weeks off for a pregnancy , nobody has issue with that , but there are people who take the absoloute piss and employers are wary.

A recruiter I know says his least favourite job to try and hire for is one with a 'full pay' maternity package, you'll get hundreds of applications from women who are visibly pregnant hoping to just work for 2 months and take off 6+ at full pay.

I'll take things that haven't happened for 500 please.

karlitob

Strumms wrote: »

Was she discriminated against. ? Or overlooked for a position because she was pregnant at the time of applying therefore just simply unable in the short - medium term to commit to joining their company and performing the role urgently required of them... ?

She was discriminated against. Have you not been following the thread. Is it too complex for you. Since it’s already been adjudicated on and there’s a thread discussing the outcome of the case - then clearly she was discriminated against.

If someone is not able to meet the requirements of the job - fine. But you can’t be dismissed out of hand because you are pregnant - or for that matter, black, a traveller, gay, too old, too young etc.

If the recruitment company said all the other reasons that they later said were the reasons that her name wasn’t put forward then fine. But they didn’t. They broke the law. You don’t set it. You don’t adjudicate on it.