MedTech ordered to pay worker €1,250 for employment law breach
Freudenberg Medical Limited unlawfully extended Jennifer O’Reilly’s probation period over missed clock-ins for lunch breaks, the Workplace Relations Commission found
A medical device manufacturing company with offices in Carrick-on-Shannon and Galway has been ordered to pay nearly €1,250 in compensation to a promoted worker in their Leitrim facility after unlawfully extending her probation over missed clock-ins for lunch breaks.
Line leader Jennifer O’Reilly submitted a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) against Freudenberg Medical Limited, alleging that the extension of her probationary period breached employment law.
Ms O’Reilly, who was based at the Carrick-on-Shannon facility, commenced employment with the company in April 2024, and was promoted to line leader the following December. Her new employment contract, which took effect in January 2025, contained a standard six-month probationary period.
She gave evidence that her probation had been due to expire on July 4, 2025. No review took place despite a contractual stipulation to this effect. She raised this matter with her team lead, and was led to believe that her probation would conclude and she would receive a pay increase.
However, on July 15, Ms O’Reilly was called into a meeting without prior notice and told that her probation was being extended by three months. She said the employer attributed the move to an alleged failure to use the clock-in machine.
She disputed this claim but an internal appeal against the extension was subsequently rejected.
Freudenberg Medical, which has major hubs in both Spiddal and Carrick-on-Shannon, argued that as a line leader, Ms O’Reilly was expected to uphold workplace standards and set an example for others.
HR director Eithne Ní Bhradaigh gave evidence that Ms O’Reilly had failed to comply with requirements over an extended period by not clocking in and out for lunch breaks.
Ms Ní Bhradaigh contended that, while the company could have reverted the worker to her former trainer role, it opted instead to extend her probation to afford her the opportunity to improve.
She added that the extension had been implemented for the worker’s benefit rather than as a disciplinary measure, and maintained the contract had also been extended to account for 12 days of sick leave.
In her decision, WRC adjudication officer Úna Glazier-Farmer noted that under Section 6D of the Act, introduced by regulations in 2022, probationary periods must not exceed six months unless an extension is on an exceptional basis and in the interest of the employee.
She found that Freudenberg Medical had produced no evidence of any assessment showing why an extension was exceptional or in Ms O'Reilly’s interests. She ruled that contractual terms allowing an employer to extend probation at its discretion cannot override statutory limits.
Ms Glazier-Farmer also rejected the company’s argument regarding sick leave, noting that statutory provisions only allow extensions matching protected statutory sick leave rather than an entire 12-day absence.
She added that the company had failed to carry out the formal documented reviews required by its own contract.
Ms Glazier-Farmer ordered Freudenberg Medical Limited to pay Ms O’Reilly €1,247, equivalent to two weeks’ remuneration, for the breach.