Woman 'scoops' €20k from Gino's Gelato group over pregnancy discrimination

Employee 'shocked and disappointed' to not be considered for managerial role while she was out on maternity leave

Gino’s Gelato operates around 20 outlets across the country, including 11 in Dublin and two in Cork City.

A woman has ‘scooped’ an award of €20,000 compensation in her pregnancy discrimination case against well-known ice-cream company, Gino’s Italian Ice Cream Ltd.

The Gino’s Gelato Italian ice-cream group operates around 20 outlets across the country, including 11 in Dublin and two in Cork City.

Now, the Labour Court has ordered the traditional homemade Italian ice-cream seller to pay €20,000 compensation to Siobhan Nolan after it found she was the victim of direct discrimination on gender grounds.

The Labour Court stated that Ms Nolan was on maternity leave from April 2018 and indicated that, when she returned, she would be interested in being considered for a managerial position.

Labour Court deputy chairman Tom Geraghty stated that such a position arose to be filled but Ms Nolan was not considered for this.

Ms Nolan told the Labour Court she was “shocked and disappointed” to be denied the opportunity to apply to make a case for her appointment to the managerial post.

Ms Nolan said she should have, and would have, been advised of the vacancy and invited to apply had she not been on maternity leave.

Mr Geraghty stated there was prima facie evidence Ms Nolan was discriminated against on grounds of gender due to the fact she was on maternity leave at the relevant time.

Ms Nolan resigned from her role in September 2018 after she was not considered for the managerial position.

Mr Geraghty stated that various arguments were put forward by the ice-cream firm that its actions were unrelated to the fact of Ms Nolan’s maternity leave.

Mr Geraghty said the court was satisfied that the Irish-owned Gino’s Italian Ice Cream Ltd "has not come anywhere near" meeting the burden of proving that the treatment of Ms Nolan was unrelated to her pregnancy.

Mr Geraghty stated that other arguments, such as the company’s record in dealing with staff returning from maternity leave and its record of promoting numbers of women, were not, in the court’s view, of relevance to the circumstances of the Nolan case.

The Labour Court ruling overturns a decision by a Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) adjudication officer that found the company didn’t discriminate against Ms Nolan.

The case was before the Labour Court following an appeal by Ms Nolan.

The company told the Labour Court it guaranteed Ms Nolan’s right to return on the same terms as she left when commencing maternity leave.

The firm stated that Ms Nolan was never told she was returning to a lesser role nor was she denied future managerial opportunities that may arise since her pregnancy.

The company acknowledged that Ms Nolan is an excellent worker and would welcome her return to the company to undergo the training that is necessary to develop her as a manager.

The company said her resignation was unnecessary and that it was surprised at her resignation. It said the decision of the adjudication officer was correct in law and that no new evidence has been provided to contradict it.