Galway Hospitality Firm Ordered to Pay €25,000 for Dismissing Manager After Miscarriage
Fadeside Ltd, a subsidiary of the Connacht Hospitality Group, has been ordered by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) to pay €25,000 to a former general manager after terminating her employment just 11 days after she suffered a miscarriage. The ruling marks what is described as the first time a worker has sought to set aside the minimum service requirements of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 under maternity protection law following a pregnancy loss.
Emergency Admission and Hospital Diagnosis in Galway City
The complainant fell ill and was admitted to accident and emergency on September 28, 2023, where she discovered she had been pregnant and was experiencing a miscarriage, according to her evidence presented to the tribunal. At the time of the medical emergency, she was just under 11 months into a €60,000-a-year position as general manager at the Residence Hotel and 1520 Bar in Galway’s Latin Quarter.
The worker stated that after she phoned in sick, group HR manager Jackie O’Dowd reached her by phone and remarked that the miscarriage would make [the complainant] want to have a baby even more
. Ms O’Dowd denied making that remark during her testimony at the WRC, while the complainant said she replied that getting pregnant was not part of her plan.
Manager Faces Dismissal After Returning from Miscarriage
Returning to work in the first week of October 2023, the manager met with her line manager, Wayne Neilon, intending to discuss working hours and business matters. Mr Neilon told her the conversation would not be going to be an easy conversation
and stated she lacked the core competencies
for the role, the tribunal heard.
As the complainant began to cry and grew more upset, Mr Neilon muttered Stop it,
she told the WRC. Group HR manager Ms O’Dowd then arrived, asked if the worker wanted to resign, and suggested she needed a break
because of the miscarriage. Management informed her during that meeting that her probation would not be extended, and she received a dismissal letter citing work performance the following day.
Legal Arguments Over Maternity Protection Law
During a hearing in March 2025, solicitor Pat Mullins of O’Flynn Exhams LLP, representing Fadeside Ltd, attempted to have the case dismissed by arguing that enhanced workplace protections under the Maternity Protection Act did not apply. Mr Mullins stated that since the complainant was not pregnant at the time of dismissal, applying the act to a previous miscarriage represented a substantial stretch of the interpretation of that part of the act
.
Counsel for the worker, Ian FitzHarris BL—led by Orlaith J Byrne & Co—argued that the dismissal occurred just 11 days after the pregnancy loss, with his client having worked only five additional days following her absence. Five days and then they sacked her. The phrase in the legislation is ‘pregnancy-related matters’,
counsel told the tribunal.
WRC Orders Fadeside Ltd to Pay 25,000 Euros
Adjudicator Louise Boyle rejected the employer’s defense regarding maternity rights, writing in her decision that it is not in dispute that a miscarriage arises from pregnancy
. Ms Boyle concluded that the firm failed to establish the exceptional circumstances
required under law to dismiss a worker entitled to maternity protections, adding that it lacks credibility that the complainant’s employment was terminated for poor performance
. The WRC ordered Fadeside Ltd to pay the former manager €25,000 for unfair dismissal.
Keep reading