An employer can have a genuine business reason for reducing working hours.

Costs may need to be reduced.

A business may be restructuring.

Demand may have changed.

Staffing requirements may have altered.

But when a proposed reduction follows closely after an employee announces that she is pregnant, the employer needs to be particularly careful about how the decision is made, evidenced and communicated.

A recent Workplace Relations Commission decision provides a useful example.

A dental assistant was awarded €10,000 after the WRC found that she had been treated less favourably on the gender ground arising from pregnancy.

The practice argued that it was experiencing genuine financial difficulties and needed to restructure.

The WRC accepted that those difficulties were real.

The problem was proving that the particular change proposed for this employee was genuinely unrelated to her pregnancy.

For employers, that distinction matters.

1. The Timing of a Decision Can Create Risk

The employee told the WRC that she returned a signed contract and informed management of her pregnancy on 17 July 2024.

Shortly afterwards, she was told that a meeting would be arranged concerning changes to her working arrangements.

A substantial reduction in her hours was then proposed.

The WRC considered the timing important.

The Adjudication Officer found that the proximity between the pregnancy announcement and proposed reduction was sufficient to raise an inference of discrimination.

That does not mean every workplace decision made after a pregnancy announcement is automatically discriminatory.

It does mean timing matters.

If an employer is already planning a restructuring or reduction in hours before learning of the pregnancy, there should ideally be records demonstrating that.

The closer the events are in time, the more important the evidence becomes.

2. “We Were Already Planning It” Needs Evidence

This is probably the most useful employer lesson from the case.

Management may genuinely have been discussing change for months.

But if the dispute later reaches the WRC, saying:

“We had already decided to restructure”

may not be enough by itself.

Look for evidence created at the time.

For example:

• management emails;
• financial reports;
• staffing plans;
• notes of meetings;
• proposed new structures;
• earlier conversations with employees;
• redundancy planning;
• draft working-hour proposals; or
• other records showing when the decision was first contemplated.

If the business can show that the decision existed independently of the pregnancy announcement, it is in a much stronger position.

3. Treat Comparable Employees Consistently

The employer in this case argued that the practice was undergoing a wider restructuring and that other employees were also affected.

That can be an important defence.

But the employer should be able to demonstrate what actually happened.

Ask:

• Which employees were affected?
• Were their hours also reduced?
• What criteria were used?
• Were those criteria objective?
• When were the changes discussed?
• Were alternatives offered?
• Why was this particular employee affected in this particular way?

If the employer says everybody was being restructured, the evidence should support that.

Consistency is easier to defend than exception.

4. Be Careful When a New Contract Has Just Been Issued

Another feature of the case was that the employee had recently been given a contract providing for 18 hours per week.

The proposed reduction followed shortly afterwards.

That raised an obvious question:

If a major reduction was already being planned, why had the employer just issued the employee with a contract for those hours?

There may be a legitimate explanation.

But employers should recognise how this can look when the events are viewed later by an independent decision-maker.

If a restructuring is already underway, make sure contracts, staffing plans and communications are aligned with what the business is actually proposing.

Contradictory paperwork creates unnecessary risk.

5. Recruitment Activity Needs to Match the Employer’s Explanation

The WRC also considered evidence that vacancies were advertised while the complainant’s own working hours were being proposed for reduction.

There can be perfectly legitimate reasons for this.

A new vacancy may:

• involve different hours;
• require different qualifications;
• relate to another shift;
• involve different responsibilities; or
• arise because another employee has left.

But if the employer says there is insufficient work to maintain one employee’s hours while simultaneously advertising for staff, the distinction needs to be clear.

Your recruitment activity should make sense alongside your restructuring explanation.

6. Make Sure the Right People Can Explain the Decision

A workplace decision is often communicated through several people.

The owner may approve it.

A manager may explain it.

HR may handle the meetings.

Another manager may have designed the staffing proposal.

If the issue later reaches the WRC, the people most closely involved can become very important.

In this case, the WRC noted that individuals centrally involved in the relevant communications and meetings did not attend to give evidence.

That created another evidential gap.

Employers should ask early:

• Who first proposed the change?
• Who decided it?
• Who communicated it?
• Who met the employee?
• Who can explain the rationale?

If the business says the decision had nothing to do with pregnancy, the people who actually made that decision may need to explain why.

7. Manage Contact During Sick Leave Carefully

The employee subsequently went on certified sick leave.

The WRC also considered the frequency and nature of the contact made with her while she was absent.

Employers sometimes need to contact employees on sick leave.

That may be necessary to:

• obtain medical certification;
• arrange occupational health;
• discuss return-to-work arrangements;
• provide important updates; or
• progress an appropriate workplace procedure.

But repeated contact about a disputed employment change can create further problems if the employee is medically unfit and the purpose or frequency of the contact is not clear.

Keep contact:

Necessary.

Proportionate.

Professional.

Documented.

And where appropriate, consider whether occupational health input would help.

The €10,000 WRC Award

The WRC ultimately found that the employee had established a case of pregnancy discrimination and that the employer had not successfully rebutted it.

The employer’s financial difficulties were accepted as genuine.

However, the WRC identified evidential gaps in the explanation for the timing and treatment of the employee.

The employee was awarded:

€10,000

in compensation.

WRC Reference: ADJ-00054622

That is an important point for employers.

The decision was not simply:

“The company had no genuine reason to restructure.”

The difficulty was:

“The company did not sufficiently prove that this employee’s treatment was unrelated to pregnancy.”

What Should Employers Do Before Changing a Pregnant Employee’s Hours?

Before implementing a significant workplace change, consider:

• When was the decision first discussed?
• Can that be proved?
• What is the objective business reason?
• Who else is affected?
• Are comparable employees being treated consistently?
• What documents support the decision?
• Does recruitment activity contradict the explanation?
• Who are the relevant decision-makers?
• Have alternatives been considered?
• Is the employee being given a meaningful opportunity to respond?

The pregnancy announcement should not prevent a genuine business restructuring.

But it should trigger a careful review of the process before the employer acts.

How Employment Matters Can Help

Situations like this can become difficult very quickly.

The employer may be dealing with a genuine financial problem while also trying to manage:

• pregnancy;
• changes to hours;
• sick leave;
• consultation;
• redundancy risk;
• employee relations; and
• potential discrimination concerns.

Employment Matters can help employers assess the issue before a decision is implemented.

Depending on the circumstances, that may involve:

• reviewing the proposed process;
• examining the available evidence;
• helping structure consultation;
• assessing discrimination risk;
• supporting difficult management discussions;
• assisting with performance, redundancy or dismissal processes;
• supporting mediation where appropriate; or
• assisting where a WRC claim has already been made.

The earlier the issue is reviewed, the more options the employer usually has.

The Wider Employer Lesson

Business decisions do not stop because an employee announces a pregnancy.

But once pregnancy is known, changes affecting that employee are likely to receive closer scrutiny.

If the reason is genuine, make sure the process demonstrates it.

If the restructuring started before the pregnancy announcement, be able to prove it.

Clear records, objective criteria, consistent treatment and good communication can make a significant difference if the decision is later challenged.

Request a Call

If your business is considering:

• reducing an employee’s hours;
• restructuring roles;
• making redundancies;
• managing an employee who is pregnant or on family-related leave; or
• responding to a WRC claim,

you can request a call with Employment Matters.

Briefly outline the issue, the stage it has reached and any important dates or deadlines.

Our initial contact is used to gather information and assess the appropriate next step. Detailed support or representation is provided under an agreed scope of work.

This article is for general information purposes only and should not be treated as legal advice. The appropriate response depends on the individual facts and circumstances.

The official WRC decision is ADJ-00054622. It records the 17 July pregnancy disclosure and subsequent proposed change, and ultimately found less favourable treatment on the gender ground arising from pregnancy.