A veteran employee of the Ballymaloe Cookery School who was pulled up for being “persistently late” by its new management team after founder Darina Allen stepped back from her day-to-day role at the business has failed in a claim for discrimination.
The worker, Julija Makejeva, expressed feelings of “betrayal” at the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) over the school’s attitude to timekeeping following her return from maternity leave in 2021.
She said she had always been “flexible” about her availability for work at short notice when she had reported to Ms Allen – but claimed her new managers failed to afford her reciprocal flexibility about her working hours after she became a mother.
Ms Makejeva’s complaint under the Employment Equality Act 2000, in which she had alleged discrimination on the grounds of her family status, was denied by the Ballymaloe Cookery School and was rejected by the WRC in a decision published today.
READ MORE
At a hearing in Cork last July, the worker said she started with Ms Allen in June 2005 as a cleaner, and worked her way up to a full-time job as a market cook and teacher at the school, and was working 8am to 4pm before going out on maternity leave in August 2020.
On her return on part-time hours in June 2021, she said, her employer afforded her a 9am start and a 2pm finish to facilitate breastfeeding.
With the support of her mother to help her with childcare, she had managed to go back to the full-time hours and 8am start, she said. However, after her mother went back to their home country, she started having difficulty getting to work on time.
If Irish households are so rich, why does it feel like an illusion?
The complainant raised her working hours as an issue, and there was agreement to push back her start time to 8.30am, when she worked in the production kitchen, the tribunal heard. However, Ms Makejeva told the hearing she wanted a 9am start and “flexible hours”.
In December 2022, Ms Makejeva submitted, Ms Allen “stepped back somewhat from her day-to-day role”, with new management staff installed.
Adjudication officer Emile Daly noted that the complaint had a particular objection to the new managers, and had made a bullying complaint against one, which was investigated, but not upheld.
Solicitor David Pearson of JW O’Donovan LLP, for the respondent, said the business made “extensive efforts” to accommodate Ms Makejeva in regard to her childcare requirements.
“Despite these accommodations, timekeeping became a persistent issue,” he submitted. Ms Makejeva “often arrived to work an hour late at 9am”. Management met her on several occasions to make reminders about recording hours and attending on time for work, starting in May 2023, he submitted.
Ahead of a planned reorganisation, Ms Makejeva was met by the school’s director, Rory O’Connell, and its general manager Adrienne Forbes, who told her they intended to move her from the production kitchen to other duties, counsel said.
As these included teaching work, Ms Makejeva was told she was needed on site by 8am or 8.30am, Mr Pearson said. Ms Makejeva said she could not make it in before 9am, and proceeded to file a formal grievance when put on written notice of the transfer, he added.
An informal meeting involving Ms Allen failed to resolve matters, counsel submitted.
Ms Makejeva’s “tardiness” remained an issue and in May 2024, the management launched a disciplinary process, it was submitted.
In June 2024, company director Toby Allen proposed a temporary part-time working arrangement. After Ms Makejeva turned this down and again sought a 9am start time, she received a verbal warning for “persistent failure to adhere to her start time”, the tribunal heard.
Ms Makejeva’s timekeeping improved following the warning, the tribunal was told – the worker having told her bosses her circumstances had changed and she would be in a position to start at 8.30am, Mr Pearson added.
“The complainant’s reassignment and associated working arrangements do not amount to discrimination on the grounds of family status,” he argued.
Adjudicator Lefre de Burgh wrote in her decision that Ms Makejeva had put forward “no evidence of discrimination based on any protected ground”.
It was “very difficult to see” how the cookery school could have done more for Ms Makejeva, short of “simply acceding to her requests to pick her own duties and pick her own hours”.
She said it was clear there had been a “very good working relationship” between the worker and Ms Allen, and that the worker “did not like the new management structure” and objected to her new reporting lines.
“She alleges that this is both unlawful and discrimination. I find that it is not,” she wrote.
