The High Court has refused Fiona Duffy’s request for an interim order requiring Liffey Meats (Cavan) to restore her to her former Credit Controller role and pay her salary during her absence from work. The court did not decide the disputed facts or the underlying employment claim.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 22 February 2017, Mr Justice Twomey said the requested orders were mandatory injunctions. At this interlocutory stage, Ms Duffy had to show a strong case likely to succeed at the full hearing. The judge found she had not met that threshold.
Ms Duffy had been the company’s sole Credit Controller before taking maternity leave on 6 November 2015. She returned on 9 January 2017 and said she was told she would not resume that role, which had been taken over by two employees. The company offered her a sales position, saying it had the same terms and conditions and was a suitable alternative.
The company said a reorganisation had taken place during her maternity leave and that concerns about her work had also contributed to the changes. It relied on employment terms that it said allowed transfers to other departments or duties. Ms Duffy disputed receiving those terms and noted the document was unsigned. The court said it could not resolve that factual dispute at the interim hearing.
The judgment records that Ms Duffy became distressed during her first days back at work. She said she had not been given enough work, received a verbal warning after taking time off for a medical appointment, and was paid €510 gross for her first week back—about €200 less than she said she previously received. The company attributed the shortfall to bonuses not yet being payable. After seeing her doctor on 20 January, she did not return to work before the hearing on 21 February. The judgment says she was not entitled to sick pay and that there was no indication of when she might be fit to return.
The judge said damages could address any earnings difference if Ms Duffy later succeeded and was fit to return. He also noted that an order preventing the company from assigning anyone else to the role could force it to reorganise the department while her return date was unknown. He said the Workplace Relations Commission appeared to be a more appropriate forum for the substance of the complaint, which concerned obligations under the Maternity Protection Act 1994. The ruling concerned only the interim motion; the court made no findings on the contested facts or the merits of the full action.