A dental surgery assistant has won €10,000 in compensation for maternity discrimination after being told her hours were to be cut by a third within days of telling her boss she was pregnant. The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) made the award in anonymised decision under the Employment Equality Act 1998.The worker started at the dental practice in 2023 as a part-time employee earning €12.70 an hour, she said. The worker’s evidence was that she had noticed “some reduction and fluctuation” in her hours starting in May 2024. However, she told the WRC that before reporting her pregnancy, she had been issued with a contract of employment for 18 hours a week on July 8th, 2024.It was when she was returning the signed copy of the contract on July 17th, 2024, that she disclosed her pregnancy, the worker said. Eight days later, on July 25th, 2024, the complainant said, she was presented with the proposal to cut her hours by a third to 12 hours a week. She said the cut in working time was “not viable” because it would mean she could no longer qualify for the Working Family Payment. Her evidence was that she became “extremely upset” at the meeting and subsequently went on certified sick leave. [ Labour Court dismisses €77,000 claim by RTÉ worker for alleged unpaid entitlementsOpens in new window ]She told the WRC she was “repeatedly contacted” by phone, email and text and “pressed” about the proposal to cut her hours. She eventually resigned on September 6th, 2024, the tribunal heard. The respondent told the WRC the business was in “significant financial difficulties” at the time. The financial position had been deteriorating from 2022 onward, and the company’s end-of-year accounts for 2023 recorded accrued losses of €190,000 and debts of €270,000, the witness said. In 2024, the orthodontist said, she had to cut her working hours to spend more time caring for her own children on foot of the High Court ruling in a family law matter. She said all staff were told in 2024 that cuts to their hours would be needed in a restructuring of the business. The witness called accommodations for pregnancy and family leave “a normal part of running a business” and said she “would not discriminate against an employee on the grounds of pregnancy”. [ ‘Toxic’ falling-out at farming body left mental health scheme ‘floundering’, tribunal toldOpens in new window ]Her evidence was that she was “pleased” to be told the worker was pregnant. In her decision, adjudication officer Úna Glazier-Farmer wrote that the closeness in time between the disclosure of the pregnancy and the proposed cut to the worker’s hours “cannot be ignored” and raised an inference of discrimination. Glazier-Farmer accepted the business was in “genuine financial difficulties” and that the orthodontist’s personal circumstances had changed. However, she found there were “evidential gaps” in the respondent’s explanation regarding the timing and rationale for the treatment of the complainant and a “failure to call witnesses who were centrally involved”. Glazier-Farmer wrote that these factors, along with job ads posted while the claimant’s hours were cut and the lack of a “clear explanation” for what happened, “can only lead to the conclusion that the respondent has failed to discharge the burden of proof”. She upheld the worker’s complaint and directed the payment of €10,000 in compensation – calling this figure “just and equitable” in the circumstances.