www law ie
The case Blundell v Governing Body of St Andrews Catholic Primary School and another [2007], which is a woman who alleges that she was discriminated against on the grounds of her pregnancy. Regulation 18 of the Maternity and Parental Leave (ETC) Regulations 1999 ( "the Regulation") provides:

"(2) An employee who returns to work ... right to return from leave to the job in which she was employed before her absence, or if it is not reasonably practicable for the employer to her to return to that work, to another job, even for her and for her to do under the circumstances. "

Rule 2 (1) provides:

' "" Job "" in relation to the return of an employee after ... Maternity leave ... means the type of work she is employed to do, in accordance with its mandate and the capacity and place in which they are employed.

The plaintiff was a teacher at the first school of the respondents. In the school from 2002 to 2003 she was given the responsibility, a teacher of the class yellow reception. In June 2003, she said, the second of the respondents, the head teacher that she was pregnant.

The head teacher of the practice towards the end of the school year was to ask any teacher what their preferences of the class for the coming academic year. They usually tried to every teacher in a special role for two years. Was told that after the impending maternity leave, the school asked the applicants if they commit "floating functions" in the following year.

The plaintiff initially agreed, but the next day, the school said that they did not want to have a "floating roll". The school / school director then told the plaintiff that it had decided only reluctantly to their concern about the disruption to the children to the applicant to teach again receiving yellow.

Later, at the 5th December, before the end of the school, the applicant has, because she was sick with a pregnancy-related. Then had her baby in January 2004. It was not to return to work until the beginning of autumn and the school did not ask her for her penchant for class allocation in June 2004.

Shortly before her return to the work of the school offered her the possibility of a "floating roll" of the class teacher or two. The applicant opted for the latter, even though they never taught in the second year earlier, and her case in the second year, the heavy burden of responsibility.

The plaintiff thereupon be entitled for sex discrimination in the Employment Tribunal, complaining that they are victims of a series of damage because of their pregnancy. The court dismissed the action, so the plaintiffs appealed to the Employment Appeals Tribunal.

On appeal, a problem arises regarding the meaning of "work" in the phrase "the task, in which she was employed before her absence" in Regulation 18 (2) of the Regulation.

The court held as follows:

The objective of the regulation was that a return back to a working position as near as possible to that they left. The purpose of the regulation was continuity, preferably to avoid dislocation. The contract was not final. The phrase "in accordance with its mission" qualified only "nature" of work. The court took the view that the capacity is more than "state", although it maybe. It was as a factual label and it was a description of the functions which the staff in the work done, nature has it. The fact that it is a factually-label, and so determined not only by the treaty, was most easily by considering the notion of "place", which is not purely contractual.

The degree of specificity with which the three topics "Nature", "capacity" and "place" to be crucial and was the central issue was how the level of specificity be determined and by whom.

The question was essentially a factual determination and assessment, and thus also for the court in the first instance.

In approaching the issue, the court had in mind the purpose of the legislation and the fact that the Regulations are for exceptional cases. These exceptional cases where it is not reasonable for the employer to ensure their return to their former workplace, the employer could be responsible for their return to another job, both for them and for them to do under the circumstances.

The legislation seeks to ensure that there is as little disruption as possible in their careers and in view of the fact that legislation to protect workers, there was no need to construct "the same work" as a broad spectrum of work, to ensure a balance between employer and employee.

The term "job" can be very specifically defined. Travel was by an employer in a position, a work that is not the same job, but still suitable. Where an exact location was different, a court was not obliged to freeze time at the exact time of the occupants of maternity leave, but could be based on the normal range within which variation occurred previously.

In this case, the court had the right response to the findings of the fact that from.

While their decision was the topic that the claimant could be required to teach a class, as its head, and that was a real, not just a theoretical requirement from the contract alone.

§ The nature of their work, according to its mission as a teacher.

§ your ability, in fact, was more realistic than as a class teacher for inclusion in yellow.

§ The location of the work could not be argued that the inclusion classroom, but the school.

The post office, the applicant returned to the same message, if the level of specificity was duly registered as "teachers". If it temporarily more specific, because the exact postal diverse, the question was whether the job was for the return of the limits of what is permissible. It was clear that the court found that it is not outside the normal range of variability that the plaintiff could have expected.

It was therefore decided that the complaint would be dismissed for any reason save that in relation to the failure to ask if the applicant in June 2004 on the expression of a preference for the class she wanted to in the following year.

If you require further information please contact or visit enquiries@rtcoopers.com http://www.rtcoopers.com/practice_employment.php

© RT Coopers, 2007. This background information is not a comprehensive or complete statement of the law on the issues can not be considered legal advice. It is only on general issues. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to the particular circumstances.

Employment lawyers, labor law, employment lawyers, employment law firms, layoffs, layoffs Unfair, BREACH OF CONTRACT, Workplace Disputes, TUPE Transfers, Drafting Employment Contracts, complaint procedures, disciplinary procedures, maternity rights, discrimination, Employment Disputes, suspensions, wrongful dismissal, Equal Pay, Media Copyright, legal, law, law firm, lawyers, notaries, lawyers in wrapping, Solicitors in Docklands, Solicitors in E1, data protection, privacy, Internet law, lawyers employment, dismissal, unemployment, layoffs.

If you require further information please contact or visit enquiries@rtcoopers.com http://www.rtcoopers.com/practice_employment.php