Kildare childcare worker's discrimination claim fails

A CHILDCARE worker was found to have not been “victimised” by her employer after she failed to get her own child a place in the creche where she worked.

Rebecca Swords (33) took the claim against Kildare-based Tots Childcare

to the Workplace Relations Committee (WRC).

Ms Swords reported that she had been “discriminated on gender and family status grounds”, and that that she was “victimised”, however this was opposed by two members of the creche’s staff who gave evidence under oath.

Ms Swords gave testimony that she was employed by Tots as a childcare worker since December 2020 working 15 hours a week in the afternoons prior to becoming pregnant.

She claimed she registered this child for a place at Tots, and was in the office when her manager “inputted these details”.

However, when she was ready to return to work in May 2025 she was informed that her child was not actually registered, which meant she couldn’t return to work due to the absence of childcare arrangements.

Ms Swords said she felt “discriminated against” when no childcare place was made available, and as she was pregnant again around this time she felt her employer didn’t want her back prior to a further maternity leave.

She was offered the alternative of working morning shifts at another location – Tots have six throughout the county – however she was not satisfied with this arrangement.

Under cross-examination, Ms Swords was asked why she herself did not do the childcare booking online herself, and whether she had any communication on a place, pricing, and hours.

She said her manager had done this for her, and that she expected staff “to be in conversation with each other on these arrangements”.

Ms Swords was asked if she paid any deposit for securing a place, and she said she was going to organise this when she returned and took her manager’s word that a childcare place was booked.

Her manager testified that there is an online booking system, and that as an employee Ms Swords would have been aware of this.

A second manager testified that when Ms Swords indicated she wanted to return to work in the mornings only, there were no morning shifts available at that time.

According to the WRC Adjudicator Seamus Clinton “the complainant is required to establish facts from which discrimination can be inferred … I find that the respondent has rebutted any presumption of discrimination on gender or family status”.

“Although the complainant felt her child had secured a place, there was no documentary evidence presented that this was the case,” said Mr Clinton.

“This lack of evidence on such an important issue of childcare and working hours is insufficient to show that discrimination on family status could have occurred.

“The respondent staff were unaware that she may have required further maternity leave, so I am satisfied there was no discriminatory treatment on gender grounds.

“There was no testimony given on how the complainant was victimised or penalised for having made an earlier protected act, (therefore) I decide the complainant was not victimised.”