In a society where women’s participation in the workforce is the norm and indeed, where two adult pay-packets are required to keep households afloat, pregnancy discrimination remains an enduring form of sexual discrimination in the workplace. Laura Gruzdaite was awarded £28,000 for unlawful discrimination in 2019 against her employer, McGrane Nurseries Ltd in Co. Armagh. This followed the termination of her contract after notifying her employer of her pregnancy and attending ante-natal appointments.[1] Such discrimination is common in Northern Ireland. In 2023, the Chief Commissioner of the Equality Commission of Northern Ireland highlighted that pregnancy-related issues remain ‘the most common sex discrimination complaint’.[2]

The Sex Discrimination Order (Northern Ireland) 1976 was followed by specific maternity legislation such as the Industrial Relations (No.2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1976. These laws addressed the most challenging barrier to women’s full participation in employment – pregnancy, representing a step towards normalising the presence of pregnant women in the workplace. Until their introduction, a pregnancy announcement frequently heralded a woman’s retirement from the world of work. Many employers flouted these laws, forcing workers to pursue their rights in industrial tribunals. Considerable bravery was required to pursue these matters in small communities where employment opportunities were often scarce.

While an employer’s discriminatory actions could financially threaten their employee, they could also endanger their health. This was powerfully demonstrated by a case taken in 1985 by a former waitress against her employer– a restaurant owner.[3] She experienced discriminatory treatment and was dismissed with a week’s notice just weeks after providing written notice of her pregnancy. She pursued a sex discrimination claim rather than an unfair dismissal claim, because she had only been employed for four months.[4] Before her pregnancy, she worked two shifts daily, performing duties that included ‘setting tables’, serving and vacuuming, but excluded dishwashing. Her relationship with her employer and his wife was described as pleasant and social at this point. She was promoted to head waitress just six weeks after starting, became responsible for training other waitresses and was even awarded an increase in wages.[5]

The applicant reported that her employer became ‘ignorant’, critical and reduced her wages when she notified him that she was pregnant. She requested a change to a single shift pattern for health reasons, on her doctor’s advice. Despite her condition she was ordered by her employer to load and unload the dishwasher – a task involving heavy-lifting, which she believed was potentially harmful. Her employer denied her claims, maintaining that she was dismissed due to performance issues which included refusal to perform dishwashing duties. He claimed that she did not request maternity leave and that ‘her appearance was unsatisfactory’.[6]

            The tribunal reasoned that the employer’s abrupt attitude change was most likely attributable to the possible impact of the applicant’s pregnancy on his business’s smooth operation. They considereda ‘theoretical man’ during their deliberations, deciding that had a male employee, with whom the employer was socially acquainted, suffered an illness exhibiting similar symptoms to the claimant’s pregnancy, that he would have been treated ‘with more sympathy and consideration’. They concluded that the claimant had indeed experienced sex discrimination. She was awarded the considerable sum of £1041.59, representing loss of earnings, in addition to £750 for her employer’s ill-treatment.[7]

Everyday cases like this one, taken by Northern Irish women, have not received significant scholarly attention. However, they merit attention as a valuable historical source illuminating women’s employment experiences and exposing the power imbalance and unspoken assumptions that formed the basis of many employment contracts. The outcomes of these cases have been influential, helping to shape the workplace of the present.

---

[1] ‘Woman wins £28,000 for pregnancy discrimination at Industrial Tribunal’(https://www.equalityni.org/Footer-Links/News/Individuals/Woman-wins-%C2%A328,000-for-pregnancy-discrimination-at).

[2] ‘View from the chair’(https://www.equalityni.org/Footer-Links/News/Employers-Service-Providers/VFTC-%E2%80%93-Making-Women-Welcome-at-Work).

[3] Mrs V. J. Carson v H. Kraft T/A   Restaurant, Imperial Shopping Arcade, Enniskillen.

[4] ‘Cases 36/85 SD, 1024/85 UD – Mrs V. J. Carson and H. Kraft T/A Bavarian Restaurant, Imperial Shopping Arcade, Enniskillen’ (Office of Fair Tribunals NI, 1024/85 UD, 36/85 SD).

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid; This case is discussed in: Suzanne Jobling, ‘Women’s employment, equal pay and anti-discrimination legislation from 1969 to 1993 : a comparative study of the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and Great Britain’(PhD dissertation, Queen’s University Belfast, 2024), pp 232-234.

Biography

Suzanne Jobling has recently graduated with a PhD in history from Queen’s University Belfast. She decided to pursue her study of history after a previous career in IT and business analysis. Her research interests are inspired by her previous career and include women’s experiences of employment, alongside employment equality legislation and equal pay and sex discrimination cases taken by women workers in the Republic of Ireland and UK, between 1970 and the early 1990s. Her first article was published by Irish Economic and Social History in 2023. She has recently convened her first module in Irish women’s history at QUB and is currently working as a part-time lecturer and teaching assistant.