€25,000 WRC Award After Dismissal 11 Days After Miscarriage: What Employers Need to Know

An employee has less than 12 months’ service.

They are still being assessed during probation.

Management says there are concerns about performance.

Can the employer simply end the employment relationship?

Not always.

A recent Workplace Relations Commission decision involving a Galway hospitality manager provides an important reminder that the normal service requirements under unfair-dismissal legislation do not give employers a free hand where the dismissal is connected to pregnancy or a pregnancy-related matter.

The employee suffered a miscarriage in September 2023.

She returned to work shortly afterwards.

Eleven days after the pregnancy loss, her employment was terminated on the stated basis of poor performance.

The WRC did not accept that explanation.

The Adjudication Officer found that the employer had failed to establish the exceptional circumstances required to justify dismissing a worker entitled to maternity-related protection and awarded:

€25,000

For employers, the wider lesson is important:

Probation, short service and performance concerns do not remove the need to examine whether pregnancy or a pregnancy-related matter has influenced the decision.

What Happened?

The employee was working as a general manager in a Galway hospitality business.

She was earning approximately €60,000 per year and had been employed for just under 11 months when she became unwell and attended A&E.

It was there that she learned she had been pregnant and was having a miscarriage.

According to her evidence to the WRC, she informed the employer of what had happened.

She returned to work in early October.

Shortly afterwards, she attended a meeting with management.

The employee said she had expected the meeting to include discussion of her working hours and other operational matters.

Instead, she was told that management did not believe she had the required competencies for the role.

She was subsequently informed that her employment would end.

The dismissal letter cited work performance.

The termination took place just 11 days after the miscarriage and after the employee had worked only a small number of days following her return.

1. Short Service Is Not Always a Complete Defence

Employers often understand the general rule that an employee normally requires 12 months’ continuous service before bringing an ordinary unfair-dismissal claim.

That rule is important.

But it is not absolute.

Certain dismissals are protected regardless of normal service requirements.

Pregnancy and pregnancy-related matters are particularly sensitive areas.

In this case, the employer argued that the employee was no longer pregnant when she was dismissed because the miscarriage had already occurred.

The WRC rejected that approach.

The Adjudication Officer stated that a miscarriage arises from pregnancy and accepted that the relevant maternity protections could apply in these circumstances.

For HR, the practical point is clear:

Do not assume that an employee with less than 12 months’ service can simply be dismissed without considering the reason and context.

2. Timing Can Become Powerful Evidence

The dismissal took place only 11 days after the miscarriage.

Timing alone does not automatically prove that a dismissal was pregnancy-related.

But extremely close timing can create an obvious evidential problem.

Where an employer says the real reason was:

performance

conduct

probation

or

capability

HR should be able to show that those concerns genuinely existed independently of the pregnancy-related event.

Ask:

When did the concerns first arise?

Were they recorded before the employee became pregnant or experienced the pregnancy-related event?

Was feedback given?

Was support provided?

Were review meetings held?

Was the employee told their job was at risk?

Was there already a documented decision-making process underway?

If the documentary record only appears after the pregnancy-related event, the employer may have difficulty proving that the two are unrelated.

3. Performance Concerns Need Evidence

The employer relied on poor performance as the reason for dismissal.

But the WRC found that explanation lacked credibility in the circumstances.

That is an important lesson for employers generally.

If performance is going to justify ending employment, there should normally be evidence.

That might include:

• documented expectations;
• performance reviews;
• previous feedback;
• clear examples of shortcomings;
• support or coaching provided;
• written concerns;
• agreed improvement objectives;
• review dates;
• and records showing how the final decision was reached.

The shorter the period between a protected event and dismissal, the more important that earlier evidence becomes.

4. Do Not Reconstruct the Performance Case After the Event

One of the biggest risks in sensitive dismissals is trying to assemble the rationale afterwards.

Management may genuinely believe an employee was underperforming.

But if there is little evidence that those concerns had been raised before the dismissal, the organisation may struggle to establish that performance was the real reason.

A safer approach is to manage performance when it arises.

Do not wait.

Record:

What is below standard?

What standard is expected?

What examples support the concern?

What does the employee need to improve?

What support is being provided?

When will the position be reviewed?

That makes the process fairer for the employee and far more defensible for the employer.

5. Probation Still Requires Proper Management

The employee’s probationary position was also part of the dispute.

The employee said she had previously been told that she had passed probation.

The WRC also noted that her contract placed a maximum limit of 11 months on probation and that she had already reached 11 months and two days’ service by the relevant meeting.

This is a useful reminder that probation should not be allowed to drift.

HR should know:

• when probation begins;
• when it ends;
• what the contract permits;
• whether it can be extended;
• what review meetings are required;
• whether the employee has been told they passed;
• and whether any extension is being made before the original period expires.

Probation is a management process.

It should not become a label applied retrospectively when the organisation wants to end employment.

6. Be Extremely Careful With Comments About Pregnancy, Miscarriage or Future Family Plans

The employee gave evidence that an HR manager made comments suggesting that the miscarriage might make her want a baby more and later suggested she may need a break because of what had happened.

The HR manager denied making the first remark. The Irish Times

Regardless of the factual dispute in this particular case, employers should treat this as a serious practical warning.

Managers should not speculate about:

whether an employee intends to become pregnant

whether they want children

whether a miscarriage changes their family plans

whether they need time away from their career

or

whether their personal circumstances make them less suited to the role

Those assumptions should play no part in employment decisions.

Where support is required, ask the employee what they need.

Do not decide for them.

7. Compassion and Process Are Not Opposites

Pregnancy loss is both a sensitive personal event and a workplace issue that may require careful management.

HR needs to deal with both dimensions.

That can involve:

• appropriate sick leave;
• sensitive communication;
• privacy;
• return-to-work arrangements;
• occupational health input where appropriate;
• temporary flexibility;
• workload considerations;
• and clear boundaries around who needs to know what.

This does not prevent management from addressing genuine performance or conduct issues.

But those issues should remain evidence-based and separate from assumptions about the employee’s health or personal life.

8. If Performance Concerns Are Genuine, Keep the Processes Separate

An employer may genuinely have performance concerns about an employee who is also dealing with a pregnancy-related issue.

One does not automatically cancel the other.

But HR should carefully separate them.

For example:

Pregnancy-related support

What leave, flexibility or support is required?

Performance management

What specific work standards are not being met?

Decision-making

Who is making the employment decision, and what evidence are they relying upon?

Timing

Does the organisation need to pause or adapt the process to allow the employee a fair opportunity to participate?

The objective should be that the employer can demonstrate:

The same performance issue would have been addressed in the same way if the pregnancy-related event had never occurred.

9. Do Not Ask for a Resignation as a Shortcut

The employee gave evidence that during the relevant meeting she was asked whether she wanted to resign.

That type of conversation carries particular risk when the employee has just experienced a significant pregnancy-related event.

Where management wants to discuss an employment concern, be clear about what the meeting is.

Do not blur:

performance discussion

with

resignation conversation

with

health and wellbeing discussion.

If the organisation is considering dismissal, the employee should understand the issue and have a proper opportunity to respond.

10. The Employer Needs a Clear Decision Record

Sensitive dismissals should be capable of being reconstructed later.

HR should be able to identify:

Who recommended dismissal?

When was the decision first considered?

What evidence was reviewed?

What alternatives were considered?

What role did probation play?

What role did performance play?

What pregnancy-related information was known to the decision-makers?

Why would the same decision have been reached regardless of that information?

If those questions cannot be answered clearly, the decision may be difficult to defend.

11. Pregnancy-Related Protection Should Be Considered Before the Decision

The time to identify a potentially protected dismissal is not when the WRC complaint arrives.

Before ending employment following:

• disclosure of pregnancy;
• pregnancy-related illness;
• miscarriage;
• maternity leave;
• return from maternity leave;
• or another pregnancy-related issue,

HR should actively check whether additional statutory protections may be engaged.

That does not mean dismissal can never occur.

It means the organisation needs to be particularly confident about:

the reason

the evidence

the timing

and

the process.

The €25,000 WRC Outcome

The employer maintained that the dismissal was based on poor performance.

The WRC rejected that explanation.

The Adjudication Officer found that it lacked credibility in all the circumstances and concluded that the employer had not demonstrated the exceptional circumstances necessary to justify the dismissal in light of the maternity-related protection engaged by the miscarriage.

The WRC awarded:

€25,000

for unfair dismissal.

At the time of preparing this article, we have not independently verified the official ADJ reference from the published WRC database, so we would not insert or speculate about a case reference until that can be confirmed.

A Practical HR Check Before Dismissing

Where an employee has recently experienced a pregnancy-related event, HR should ask:

Service
Are there statutory exceptions to the normal service requirement?

Timing
How close is the proposed dismissal to the pregnancy-related event?

Reason
What is the actual reason for dismissal?

Evidence
Did the supporting evidence exist before the protected event?

Probation
Is the employee genuinely still within a valid probationary period?

Performance
Were concerns clearly raised and documented?

Decision-makers
Who knows about the pregnancy-related circumstances?

Communication
Have managers avoided assumptions or inappropriate comments?

Alternatives
Could support, leave, adjustment or further review address the issue?

Documentation
Could the organisation explain the decision objectively at a WRC hearing?

The Practical Lesson for Employers

This decision is not a message that an employee who has suffered a miscarriage can never be dismissed.

It is a reminder that employers need to be able to separate a legitimate employment decision from the pregnancy-related circumstances surrounding it.

Where performance is the reason:

prove the performance issue.

Where probation is relied upon:

check that probation is still valid.

Where dismissal follows closely after a pregnancy-related event:

scrutinise the timing and decision-making carefully.

And above all:

do not assume that short service removes the risk.

The closer the employment decision is to pregnancy or a pregnancy-related matter, the stronger and more independent the employer’s evidence needs to be.

How Employment Matters Can Help

Employment Matters supports employers with sensitive and complex workplace processes, including:

• performance management;
• disciplinary and grievance processes;
• workplace investigations;
• redundancy and dismissal;
• workplace mediation;
• defending employment claims; and
• manager training and workshops.

Where an employee is dealing with a pregnancy-related or other sensitive personal issue alongside an employment process, getting the structure and documentation right at the outset can significantly reduce the risk of a later dispute.

This article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.