Hotel ordered to pay former staff member €7,000 over pregnancy discrimination
Cliff House Hotel, Ardmore
Valshan Unlimited have been ordered to pay €7,000 to a former hotel staff member on the grounds of discrimination relating to her pregnancy.
The complainant, Ms. Desiree Goncalves, was employed as a spa therapist at Cliff House Hotel in Ardmore, County Waterford, at the time.
She also contended that she was discriminated against on the grounds of family status and in not being afforded health and safety leave during her pregnancy.
These complaints, however, were found to be not well founded.
Submissions and evidence was received by the parties and relevant witnesses during a Workplace Relations Commission hearing in Waterford Courthouse last September, which was attended by the Waterford News & Star.
The complainant outlined multiple areas of alleged discrimination in her official complaint form and during the hearing.
Firstly, she described failure on behalf of the employer to place her on health and safety leave while pregnant, secondly, cutting her hours of work while she was pregnant, and thirdly, insisting she carry out certain tasks during her pregnancy despite her GP saying she was not capable of doing so.
Representing the employer at the hearing in September, Mr. Tiernan Lowey BL, said that the company “rejects in the strongest terms any allegations of discriminatory treatment”.
He added that evidence showed that the employer was “at pains at all times” to ensure that the complainant and her unborn child were protected.
The complainant chose to represent herself during the proceedings, and was therefore tasked with posing questions to various members of hotel staff as they took the stand.
During the hearing, Ms. Goncalves outlined her case before Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer, Gaye Cunningham.
In her subsequent report of the hearing, Ms. Cunningham said that the complainant made extensive submissions, both written in a four page narrative in her complaint form, and at the hearing where she gave sworn evidence.
Ms. Cunningham outlined that: “The ‘details’ section in the complaint form contains much detail, which, at times, is difficult to discern clearly and parts of which, respectfully, do not appear to be relevant to the complaint.”
Ms. Goncalves also submitted ‘voluminous’ documents, screenshots of messages and communications between her and the respondent.
Throughout the proceedings, the complainant outlined various incidents she believed to be discriminatory.
She alleged that during her pregnancy she was demanded to undertake multiple massages on clients, which would require her to stand, despite her doctor suggesting she do no standing massages, hot stone massages, or that she be exposed to certain chemicals.
The former manager of the hotel spa said that she had a “good, normal, healthy relationship” with the complainant.
When asked if she demanded that the complainant carry out multiple treatments on clients, which would require her to be standing, she said no, and that the hotel acted “extremely careful and cautious” towards the complainant.
The complainant also said that her hours were significantly cut which affected her earnings. Mr. Lowey outlined on behalf of the employer that altering hours is normal practice at the hotel spa and that all staff work varying hours depending on business needs and number of clients.
Further addressing this, the former manager of the spa said that altering the complainant's hours was not a discriminatory act.
Regarding the alleged refusal of the employer to place the complainant on health and safety leave, Mr. Lowey said that granting leave was a “last resort” option, and that the company explored alternatives before invoking this option and risk assessment was conducted.
Another alleged incident involved the complainant being removed by staff from undertaking treatment on a client. This decision, according to Mr. Lowey, was undertaken as there was doubt as to whether the complainant would be safe whilst carrying out the task.
Mr. Lowey posed the question to the complainant: “Isn’t the reason they removed you, in the interest of you and your unborn child?” The complainant responded that during previous pregnancies she had “no problem” doing such tasks.
Ms. Cunningham decided that Ms. Goncalves’ complaint that the respondent discriminated against her by treating her less favourably on the ground related to her pregnancy was well founded.
She ordered the respondent to pay to the complainant the sum of €7,000 in compensation for the effects of the discrimination.
Ms. Cunningham came to the conclusion that the complaints under the family status ground and health and safety leave refusal were not well founded.
