Computer chip giant Intel claims the Labour Court was wrong to refuse to admit new evidence in a case brought by one of its managers who alleges she was discriminated against following her return to work after pregnancy.
Marie Cunningham, who worked with the Kildare-based firm since 1997, failed in 2012 in a complaint to an Equality Tribunal that the company discriminated against her by failing to restore her to her role as Greater European Region workforce mobility manager when she returned from maternity leave in 2008.
She appealed that decision to the Labour Court which heard all the evidence and was at legal submission stage when an issue arose over whether further evidence could be admitted at this stage of the hearing.
That dispute resulted in Intel bringing High Court proceedings claiming the Labour Court was wrong in its decision not to reconstitute itself and rehear the case.
Alternatively, the company sought an order that further evidence be permitted before the Labour Court issues its determination.
Opening Intel's case today before Ms Justice Marie Baker, Brian Murray SC said that as a result of new claims raised by Ms Cunningham, including in relation to how her health had been affected by alleged harassment, his side was seeking to be allowed to further cross-examine Ms Cunningham.
The Labour Court is opposing Intel’s application. Ms Cunningham, who is a notice party, is representing herself.
Ms Cunningham complained she was discriminated against on the grounds of gender and was bullied and harassed by her former manager once he learned of her pregnancy
While on maternity leave, she says she was not kept up to date with changes in the organisation and was not given a proper job when she returned. She claimed she isolated and humiliated on her return. She has been on paid sick leave since December 2008.
Intel denies her claims of discrimination and says she was returned to work in a suitable role with no negative impact on her, including retaining her same grade and pay.
The hearing continues.