Woman awarded €20k for discrimination at Limerick hair salon

A WOMAN has been awarded €20,000 by the Labour Court for discrimination after she went on pregnancy-related sick leave while working for a hair salon in County Limerick. 

The complainant, Helen Ahern, who worked in the barber section of Croc’s Hair and Beauty, in Clarina, was previously awarded €6,000 by an adjudication officer.

The officer determined that the business “had discriminated against the complainant by not offering her the same hours of work on her return to work following a period of absence due to pregnancy-related illness.

Both Ms Ahern and the respondent, Teresa Cross (Shanahan), owner of the salon, appealed the adjudication officer’s decision.

Ms Cross, who has been owner of the salon since 2010, appealed on the basis that the officer “erred in fact and in law”, while Ms Ahern appealed on the grounds that the award was “too low”.

The Labour Court hearing took place on January 23 this year.

Ms Ahern, who commenced working for Croc’s in December 2013, told the court that she announced her pregnancy in February 2015 to Ms Cross.

She alleged that Ms Cross replied: “I know, your arse is fatter” and “you are very young”.

Sarah Treacy, of Peninsula Business Services, representing Ms Cross, denied that Ms Ahern was subjected to “any form of discrimination” and that Ms Cross denied the alleged comments that were made when Ms Ahern announced her pregnancy.

That April, Ms Ahern commenced sick leave due to pregnancy-related illness, and was certified fit to return to work by a doctor in July 2015, she stated.

When she told Ms Cross she wished to return to work, she said she was told that she could work four hours per day. She told the court that she was “anxious” to return to her normal hours.

The complainant alleged that her employer said that she was “not reliable” and as she would be commencing maternity leave before Christmas, she would have to be replaced and that it was “too much hassle”.

The complainant stated that the respondent advertised for a part-time stylist/barber in the local newspaper in August 2015, which she claimed was her position.

Ms Treacy said it was notable Ms Ahern was on illness benefit prior to and after the July meeting, and that she must have been deemed medically unfit to work.

Ms Ahern said that she had to continue claiming the benefit as she had no other income, she said in cross-examination.

When asked about the four hours a day, she indicated that those hours would not suit her “due to the costs involved in travelling for so little reward”.

Ms Cross said at the time of this claim, there were a number of staff members on maternity- and sick-leave. She said she “worked around” the complainant and “did what suited” her.

She said that on occasions, she had to close the salon due to staff shortages at this time. In relation to the July meeting, she said the complainant said that as she would be absent again, she was “only seeking a few hours work”.

Michael Purtll BL, instructed by Frances Twomey & Co solicitors, asked Ms Cross about the newspaper advertisement. She said that she needed workers and the complainant was out on sick leave.

She said that the complainant had no fitness to work cert, that she attempted to contact Ms Ahern and that she “made no effort to contact her”.

Ms Cross said she was receiving sick certs from the complainant and, therefore, she could not compel Ms Ahern to work even though she had work available for her, the Labour Court heard. 

The Labour Court found the respondent’s evidence “unsatisfactory and lacking in candour in many material respects” and the complainant “gave honest evidence to the best of her recollection”.

The court said it was satisfied that the respondent’s efforts to seek a new employee when Ms Ahern was ready to return to work after her illness “undermines the respondent’s credibility”.

The court said that an inference of discrimination had been made and the “onus of proving the contrary shifts to the respondent”.

“Having considered all of the evidence in this case, the court is fully satisfied that the respondent has failed to discharge the burden that it bears. Accordingly, the complainant is entitled to succeed.”

The court determined that the adjudication officer’s award should be increased to €20,000 “for the effects of the discrimination suffered” by the complainant.