/nginx/o/2013/03/01/1612902t1hcf7a.jpg)
Yesterday, labour dispute committee ruled in favour of a lady who claimed she’d been sacked by sewing company ASK Teenus OÜ upon hearing she was expecting a baby and already had one child.
Woman with child wins labour dispute
Please note that the article is more than five years old and belongs to our archive. We do not update the content of the archives, so it may be necessary to consult newer sources.
Having been sacked, the lady had recourse to equality commissioner, who assisted her in filing an application to labour dispute committee and represented the victim in the labour dispute. Labour dispute committee concluded the woman had been discriminated due to pregnancy and being a mother. As compensation, the victim was awarded payment of six months’ average and €2,000 for non-patrimonial damage caused by violation of rights.
The employee was hired by the company as seamstress, and was in her probationary period. As confirmed by the equality commissioner bureau, the company wanted to sever employment relationship the very day they heard the employee was expecting a baby. Also, at the same time, the employer learned that the lady already had one child. The company substantiated termination of working relationship by the employee having hidden vital information as she was employed, said the bureau. By vital information, the employer meant that the employee was raising a small child.
For Anneli Kaldaru, representative of ASK Teenus – a family company founded in 1994 – the labour dispute committee decision came as great surprise.
Ms Kaldaru said the company offered training to the employee, paying her minimum wages for it. «Her attitude to work and results were dissatisfactory. Therefore, we told her she didn’t fit. Then she tabled her trump card of having a small child and, having just seen a doctor, was expecting another,» explained Ms Kaldaru, assuring the woman was not sacked because of pregnancy.
According to Ms Kaldaru, the lady had managed to be in training for two-three weeks. «She never finished one product. We incurred expenses because of her,» said Ms Kaldaru.
Even so, the employer submitted no evidence during the labour dispute regarding the woman’s skills and abilities not having corresponded to the job requirements. Also, the employer failed to show up at the labour dispute committee meeting as, in her opinion, she was the damaged party.
«We’ve got the written statement by production manager regarding how her [the employee’s – edit] daily work was assessed,» added Ms Kaldaru.
«It is our job to fight against arbitrary actions by employees towards pregnant employees and those who are parents. Pregnant and parent employees are under special legal protection and the reality of said protection needs to be our goal. In this case, the employer was especially cynical, allegedly terminating labour contract for not knowing the employee was a parent,» commenter the equality commissioner Mari-Liis Sepper.
Employers who place a pregnant employee, or one returning from parental leave, in an unfavourable situation, need to consider that they may be facing a discrimination dispute, Ms Sepper underlined. Also, in case employee rights have been violated, an employer would need to compensate all damage caused by discrimination.
«An employer is obligated to organize work in such a manner as to allow the employee to have her lawful pregnancy, maternity and parental leave, with a replacement secured for that period,» added Ms Sepper, according to whom a woman needs to be confident in being able to return to the previous post once her leave is over, with her working conditions as good as before parental leave.