Robotics firm must compensate employee after maternity policy change 

WRC adjudication officer ordered company to pay former employee compensation of €14,615 — the equivalent of 20 weeks’ pay — within 42 days. Picture: Colin Keegan/ Collins 

A Dublin robotics firm has been ordered to pay over €14,000 in compensation to a female employee after it unilaterally changed its policy on maternity leave to less favourable terms while she was having her first child.

The Workplace Relations Commission upheld a complaint taken by Aisling Bermingham that her former employer, Eiratech Robotics, had breached the Maternity Protection Act 1994 by making changes to the terms and conditions of her employment without her agreement while she was on protected leave.

Ms Bermingham began working as an administrative assistant with the company, based in Blanchardstown Industrial Park in Dublin, on September 16, 2021.

The WRC heard she found out she was expecting her first child a short time later and informed her employer of the pregnancy on October 18, 2021.

Ms Bermingham told the WRC she had checked the Eiratech Robotics’ employee handbook and maternity leave policy after she found out she was pregnant and again before a meeting with management in January 2022.

She claimed it was clear she would be paid her salary throughout her maternity leave, with the company deducting any payment from the amount she would receive if she qualified for State maternity benefit.

Ms Bermingham said the original version of this policy was still online in July 2022 when she filed her complaint to the WRC, although it had been updated in February 2022 after she had met with management.

She claimed she was informed at the meeting in January 2022 by the company’s former HR manager that there was “a mistake in the policy”.

Ms Bermingham said the former HR manager told her again a few days later that “unfortunately it is simply an administrative error”. 

Ms Bermingham told the WRC the Eiratech Robotics’ chief executive had not read the policy before the meeting and he claimed it had been written when there were only four people in the firm when “no one read it or needed it”. 

She claimed her employer knew she was not entitled to State maternity benefit as she did not have enough contributions.

The WRC heard she received a supplementary welfare allowance of €206 per week plus child benefit of €140 per month.

Ms Bermingham said she had struggled financially during a difficult time and still was.

She believed she would never be able to make up for the loss of earnings.

The WRC heard she went on maternity leave on April 1, 2022, and resigned from the company on January 7, 2023.

Olivia O’Connor of Ibec, representing the company, argued Ms Bermingham’s claim was misguided and should not be heard by the WRC as there was no entitlement to maternity pay under the Maternity Protection Act.

While he agreed with that assertion, WRC adjudication officer Jim Dolan said there was no ambiguity about the firm’s policy on maternity leave.

Mr Dolan said employees had an entitlement to be paid during periods of maternity leave.

He pointed out maternity leave falls into the category of “protected leave”, which provides protection against dismissal or changes to an employee’s terms and conditions of employment while on maternity leave.

“The complainant’s terms and conditions were unilaterally changed whilst she was on maternity leave. I conclude that this is a breach of the act,” said Mr Dolan.

He ordered Eiratech Robotics to pay her compensation of €14,615 — the equivalent of 20 weeks’ pay — within 42 days.

Last August, the WRC also ordered the company to pay compensation of €7,500 to a former employee who had been constructively dismissed when he resigned over the company’s failure to pay his salary for three months.

Eiratech Robotics claimed its Russian investors had been unable to forward it promised funds.