Coca Cola marketer wins €68k for maternity discrimination
Lisa Deveney told the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) at a hearing last winter that she thought she was going to return to her old job as premium spirits marketing manager, which she had held since 2018, at the end of maternity leave in January 2024.
She said she suffered an "acute stress reaction" after her colleagues were told the employee brought in to cover her absence would be staying in her former role.
Coca Cola HBC Ireland Ltd has now been found in breach of the Employment Equality Act 1998 on foot of a complaint by Ms Deveney.
The company had denied that complaint, along with a further complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, which was not upheld by the tribunal.
Ms Deveney's evidence was that she had been absent for one year and 21 days on the day she was to go back to work on 22 January this year, owing to pregnancy-related health issues. It was her second period of maternity leave, she told the WRC.
She said the first she was told that she would not be going back in as premium spirits marketing manager was at the end of a call the Friday before the week she was due back.
"I was a bit nervous about going back. There hadn't been anything set up," Ms Deveney said. She said a manager, Mr A, told her: "You won't be returning to your role. We're looking for you to return to a new role."
"He didn't know the [job] title at the time. I thought at the time it sounded like a demotion," Ms Deveney said, referring to concerns about the fact she would no longer be reporting to a manager at director level.
"He said it would be good experience," Ms Deveney said. Her response was: "Listen I'm not going to throw my toys out of the pram," and that she asked for the job specification. "Obviously, I'm pretty sideballed. I thought I was getting my job back," she said.
She said that Mr A told her they would sit down and discuss the position when she was back in the office on Monday 22 January. The complainant said she expected to see a job spec to review over the weekend, but that this was not forthcoming.
Ms Deveney said the next time she and the manager spoke was at a wider team meeting at 3.30pm that same day. "[He] started the call and said it was brilliant that I was back, that I was taking the premium spirits role and moving to [the other] team."
"I assumed it was going to be a conversation, not a done deal – obviously it was," she said.
"There's a vast difference in experience," she said of the new role description. "Three years' experience, that could be nearly a graduate position – for me that's quite a junior position," Ms Deveney said.
She said she had to ask another colleague on the Tuesday to "hold off" on sending an email to the new team, telling her that she was "not accepting the position". "I felt I was bullied into taking a role," she said.
Mr A's evidence to the WRC was that the role change was a process he and the complainant "were working through" prior to a formal offer being made.
His evidence was that Ms Deveney was "at no time… asked to accept the position or to say that she wasn't interested". He said she told him she would "give it a go" and that he felt it was okay to move forward with it.
He explained that he planned to meet with Ms Deveney about the role prior to making a formal offer, but was "incredibly busy" the day she returned to work on Monday 22 January.
He said that he had outlined the role as a "proposal" at the team meeting that day and that Ms Deveney had come to him afterwards stating that she was "blindsided" and raising concerns about demotion.
Mr A said he only became aware the following evening that the arrangement was drawing "an emotional response".
Ms Deveney said she suffered a panic attack on the evening of Tuesday 23rd January and called in sick for the following day. She did not return to work prior to tendering her resignation in March 2024, the tribunal was told.
Cillian McGovern BL, instructed by Aaron McKenna Solicitors for the complainant, said a worker hired in to cover his client's absence had been "left in that position" when his client ought to have taken the job back.
Mary Fay BL, appearing for Coca Cola instructed by Arthur Cox solicitors, told the WRC the job Ms Deveney previously occupied had "just grown to such an extent it would not be reasonable to expect one person to do all the duties" and that the position had to be "split".
In her decision, adjudicator Patricia Owens examined the job descriptions for Ms Deveney's former job and the new position.
She noted that the grade and pay were the same for both jobs. However, the old role was described as a "manager" position, reporting to director level, while the new role was described as a "lead" position and did not involve managing a budget, the adjudicator noted.
The "manager" position described responsibilities at a "strategic level" while the new "portfolio" lead had duties that were "very much operational", she wrote.
She added that it was "not difficult to imagine how offensive" the suggestion that "a small portion" of the budget Ms Deveney once managed would be requested for her. Ms Owens concluded that the new post "constituted a demotion for the complainant".
Ms Owens also wrote that she was "struck by the inconsistencies" in Mr A's account of his discussions with the complainant on the new role, while Ms Deveney had been "consistent throughout".
She concluded on the balance of probabilities that the employer had "already decided that the complainant would move to the new role upon her return from maternity leave and that there was no intention to provide her with options".
Ms Owens called it a "fait accompli", and also rejected a further argument by the firm that the transfer was required because of organisational change.
She concluded that Ms Deveney had been discriminated against on the grounds of gender by not being returned to her former position after maternity leave.
The adjudicator awarded €68,000 in compensation for the breach, just short of a year's basic salary.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Independent
4 days ago
- Irish Independent
Worker pestered for dates by older colleague wins €5,000 for sexual harassment at WRC
An ex-employee of popular Dublin ice cream parlour Spilt Milk, who said she quit after months of sexual harassment from a colleague a decade her senior, has won €5,000 in compensation. Leni Shanahan secured the compensation on foot of her complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1998 against LN Ice Cream Ltd, the operator of the shop on Drury Street in Dublin 2.
Irish Examiner
5 days ago
- Irish Examiner
Labour Court to hear X appeal of payout for unfair dismissal to former Irish executive
The main Irish unit of Elon Musk's X will commence its appeal at the Labour Court on Tuesday against a ruling that it must pay out an Irish record unfair dismissal award of €550,131 to a former executive. In the ruling last August, Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) adjudicator, Michael MacNamee found that Twitter International UC - since renamed X Internet Unlimited Company - unfairly dismissed the company's former Director Source to Pay, Gary Rooney in December 2022 after he failed to respond to Elon Musk's 'Fork in the Road' email. Mr Rooney has yet to receive any of the monies as the case is before the Labour Court on appeal from Twitter International UC. The published Labour Court diary confirms that the Labour Court has set aside hearing days for Tuesday and Wednesday of this week at the Labour Court's Dublin HQ for the appeal. Solicitor for Mr Rooney, Barry Kenny of Kenny Sullivan Solicitors in Bray declined to comment on Monday ahead of the appeal. However, commenting last month on the impending Labour Court hearing, Mr Kenny said: 'My client is anxious to put all this all behind him.' He said last month: 'The WRC determined that X's treatment of him as a long standing and loyal employee amounted to an unfair dismissal. Mr Rooney is anxious that the Labour Court will affirm this decision.' Mr Kenny said: 'It is open to the Labour Court to increase or reduce sums awarded in the WRC as it will be a De Novo hearing.' He said last month that X had advised that they intend to call at least three witnesses while Mr Rooney is the only witness in his own case. At the WRC, Twitter International UC fully contested Mr Rooney's claim, over five days of hearing, contending that he had resigned voluntarily. In his findings, Mr MacNamee found that Mr Rooney was dismissed because he did not click 'yes' to Elon Musk's 'Fork in the Road' email on November 16, 2022 and for that reason alone. On November 16, 2022, Mr Rooney and the Twitter workforce received an email from the world's richest man, Mr Musk who said: 'To build a breakthrough Twitter 2.0 and succeed in an increasingly competitive world, we will need to be extremely hardcore. This will mean working long hours at high intensity. Only exceptional performance will constitute a passing a grade." Mr Musk said: 'If you are sure that you want to be part of the new Twitter, please click yes on the link below.' After Mr Rooney opted not to click 'yes' on the link, three days later on November 19, 2022, Mr Rooney received a further company email which stated that it is 'to acknowledge your decision to resign and accept the voluntary separation offer'. On receiving Mr Musk's 'Fork in the Road' email, Mr Rooney said his first reaction was disbelief and he was initially afraid even to open it for fear that it was spam or malware. The record €550,131 award was made up of Mr Rooney's remuneration losses of €350,131 from January 2023 to May 2024 and estimated future remuneration losses of €200,000. The remuneration losses were based on Mr Rooney's Twitter remuneration of €323,560 made up of €151,225 in pay and €172,335 in deferred cash consideration. Mr Rooney secured a new role with an employer in the banking sector in September 2023 on total remuneration of €129,897.
RTÉ News
24-07-2025
- RTÉ News
WRC finds Fair City photographer was not a freelancer
RTÉ has failed to have employment rights claims by the former on-set photographer for Fair City thrown out, after the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) ruled, for the first time, that a supposed freelancer at the national broadcaster was actually an employee. The statutory complaints were brought by photographer, Beta Bajgart, who was previously the subject of commentary at the Public Accounts Committee when it emerged the national broadcaster was paying €60,000 per year for promotional images of the Dublin-based soap opera. Ms Bajgart's case against RTÉ under the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003, the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 and the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 will now proceed to a full hearing, following a preliminary ruling today. It is the first WRC case where the principles of a major Supreme Court ruling in 2023 on the distinction between employees and contractors have been applied to the position of a worker at RTÉ. The alleged misclassification of media workers as freelance contractors by RTÉ is a major legacy issue at the national broadcaster. She claims her job as a photographer on the set of RTÉ's flagship soap opera was terminated without notice on 15 December 2023. The broadcaster's lawyers had argued Ms Bajgart was not an employee, but a freelance contractor - giving the employment tribunal "no jurisdiction" her complaints. Adjudication officer Catherine Byrne noted that Ms Bajgart suffered "negative commentary" in September 2023 after attention was drawn to Ms Bajgart's role following a hearing of the Oireachtas Public Accounts committee, which had been scrutinising RTÉ's finances. In the wake of the publicity, Ms Bajgart's solicitors wrote to RTÉ asserting that she had acquired a contract of indefinite duration and was an employee, the tribunal noted. The broadcaster's director of human resources replied that RTÉ's relationship with the photographer was "not an employment relationship" but that she was "a supplier of services". Ms Bajgart was first engaged for the work as an independent contractor for a year starting in June 2011 at €750 a week. There were repeated renewals of the contract and Ms Bajgart won tender competitions in 2017 and 2019, with the rate for the job rising to €980 a week over that period, the tribunal noted. However, Ms Bajgart did not apply when the work was put out to tender again in September 2023, and ultimately ceased working on the Fair City set on 15 December 2023, when the tender process was readvertised, the adjudicator noted. Ms Bajgart gave evidence that she was interviewed for the job in 2011 and "got the contract", with "no discussion about the legal implications". She explained that she set the rate for the job based on her previous work for another production, Off the Rails. Addressing a gap in her contracts between 14 October 2018 and 21 January 2019, Ms Bajgart said she "simply continued to work" and got paid. Her barrister, Michael O'Doherty BL, who appeared instructed by Conor McCrave of Setanta Solicitors, asked if she had "consented to doing the job as an independent contractor. Ms Bajgart replied: "I wanted the job," and added that it was "never offered" to her as a position of employment. Under cross-examination from RTÉ's solicitor, Louise O'Byrne of Arthur Cox, asked Ms Bajgart whether she had done other work while engaged for Fair City. Ms Bajgart said she ran her freelance business around the Fair City shot list and that it was difficult to look for clients because she never knew when she was due on set. Ms O'Byrne also referred to a letter sent by the complainant to the Irish Times and the Irish Independent in September 2023 following remarks by Fine Gael senator Micheál Carrigy about Ms Bajgart's, in which the complainant had stated: "The photographer on RTÉ's Fair City is an independent contractor." Ms O'Byrne argued this showed the claimant "did not consider herself as an employee" of RTÉ. Mr O'Doherty said she had described herself as an independent contractor "because she did not want to upset her employer and potentially lose her job by publicly describing herself as an employee". Adjudication officer Catherine Byrne wrote that the "day-to-day reality" of Ms Bajgart's working relationship with RTÉ was "not consistent with how she was described in her contract as 'a supplier' and 'not an employee'". Ms Byrne noted that Ms Bajgart had been working 20 hours a week, part-time, for 12 years on "a series of fixed-term contracts" in a role which "contributes to the promotion and success" of Fair City. The worker had had a desk on set, "no discretion" about her level of attendance there, and could only work elsewhere three or four hours a week, and performed the work personally 95% of the time, Ms Byrne said. There were limits to Ms Bajgart's "artistic independence" and her freedom to alter her way of working in a bid to increase her earnings, with a fixed weekly rate being paid, Ms Byrne added. Ms Byrne also noted that during a period between October 2018 and January 2019, when there was no contract in place, Ms Bajgart "continued to turn up for work" and got her normal weekly rate "without any dispute". "This continuity of employment, in the absence of a contract, is indicative of a relationship of interdependence and trust, and not that of a commercial agreement," Ms Byrne wrote. "The authors of the agreements… may have genuinely believed that the working relationship with [Ms Bajgart] was that of an independent contractor, at least in the early years," she wrote. "However, it seems to me that the sustained nature of her job and the sole reliance by the respondent on the complainant to do the work, means that the legal basis of the agreement evolved from a supplier's agreement to that of an employee," she added. Ms Byrne wrote that her investigation of Ms Bajgart's status was clouded by the fact the photographer appeared to have "acquiesced" to being classified as self-employed for years - and even described herself as an independent contractor in open letters to two newspapers in 2023. "This acquiescence has no bearing on my conclusion that her relationship with the respondent was that of an employee," the adjudicator wrote.
