Brookfield fired manager on maternity leave, retained replacement: lawsuit

However, in its defense filed in court, the company said that of the two employees – Ms. Dyball and the new male development manager – it chose to retain the newer employee because of his superior skills and “the need for continuity in management.” “Resourcing”. .

Ms Dyball was hired in 2017 to manage Brookfield’s land development in Western Australia.

Bonus haircut

During this time, the company made several social media posts that cited her as an example of supporting diversity in the construction industry. She has also been photographed for media articles about women in leadership positions.

Ms. Dyball took parental leave in mid-2022. According to her court statement, Brookfield recruited a man to fill her role while she was away, and he accompanied her on the job for months before she left.

Ms Dyball would ultimately extend her holiday until the middle of this year. But 15 months later, she claimed that a Brookfield senior vice president and vice president told her that the company was prorating her bonus to 80 percent of the maximum amount, or $274,000, to take into account the time she actually worked before taking parental leave I was working on a project.

Ms. Dyball argues in court documents that the company’s bonus policy specifically provides for “no pro rata calculation … based on hours worked.”

She claims that by reducing her bonus because of her parental leave, Brookfield unlawfully discriminated against her based on her gender and family responsibilities.

In April, a month before Ms. Dyball was scheduled to return to work and two days after she formally requested to work three days a week, Brookfield management called her to a meeting to discuss her employment.

The senior vice president, vice president, and a human resources manager told her that her role was unnecessary because there was not enough work and no suitable positions to reassign.

The managers then allegedly gave her a termination letter with a settlement document promising her a voluntary payment of $18,000 if she signed it.

When asked if she was the only person fired, the senior vice president reportedly told Ms. Dyball, “There are some changes,” but gave no further details.

When asked if the new employee was still in her role, the vice president allegedly told her that the company had created two senior development manager positions but there wasn’t enough work to keep both.

Ms Dyball argues that her dismissal was intended to prevent her returning to her position before the parental leave and “there is no other plausible explanation for the decision to terminate her employment (retaining the male employee who was in her position before the parental leave). had been on parental leave).” “.

Even if the new employee held a different position – which she did not accept – she said she would have been qualified for the position he filled.

Brookfield has told the court it made the dismissal decision because “a number” of potential construction projects were not progressing as expected and the market outlook had deteriorated.

The company denied hiring the man to replace Ms Dyball while she was on leave, but said it decided in March it would retain him of the two senior development managers because he had “superior experience, skills and expertise”. .

He was also suitable for the role “due to his familiarity and experience” on a project Ms Dyball had previously worked on and because of “the need for continuity in resourcing”.

Brookfield denied serious breaches and argued that Ms Dyball had not alleged a “systematic pattern of behaviour”. The managers also denied wrongdoing.

However, Elizabeth McLean, a director of Pragma Lawyers, who does not represent the parties, said that since February the Albanian government had changed the criteria for serious violations to remove the need to prove “systematic patterns of behavior.”

“The change lowers the bar by expanding the test to capture more behavior.”

Individuals found to be involved in serious breaches of employment laws, including the Fair Work Act’s Return to Work Guarantee, could be fined up to $187,000; Companies face fines of up to $4.7 million.

A Brookfield spokesman said it was not appropriate to comment while the matter was before the courts.

Ms Dyball said Brookfield’s defense contained “factual errors and nonsensical statements”, which she would address in a further statement.