A senior sales manager who said his employer made a “threat” that he might have no job to come back to if he took his parental leave has won €51,000 for employment rights breaches.
Deel Ireland EOR Limited, the Irish arm of US-headquartered human resources management software firm Deel Inc, has been directed by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) to pay the sum on foot of complaints by a former head of sales for the Nordic region, Tommi Wong.
Mr Wong was already approved to take a period of parental leave from work when, at a meeting on 22 July 2025, he was told there “might be no role available” for him on his return if he went ahead with it, he said in evidence.
He said he considered this a “threat” and added that “clear adverse treatment” followed in about 30 minutes, when his approved leave was withdrawn.
It was reinstated later, and he took his parental leave between 18 August and 20 October 2025, he said.
After he returned to work in the autumn, he was placed on a performance improvement plan, had his probationary period extended and was issued with a final written warning, he said.
He said these measures were “punitive and unjustified, and not reflective of his performance”.
Mr Wong was issued with notice of dismissal from his €125,000-a-year job at Deel on 4 December 2025, the tribunal heard.
The company’s lawyers said Mr Wong’s claims were denied, but called no witnesses to testify.
The tech firm’s lawyers said Mr Wong secured a Circuit Court injunction later that month under the Protected Disclosures Act.
This had the effect of continuing Mr Wong’s employment, salary and benefits pending the outcome of the proceedings before the Workplace Relations Commission, the respondent’s lawyers submitted.
Mr Wong had relied on correspondence he sent his employer in early November 2025 as a protected disclosure.
Adjudication officer Breiffni O’Neill wrote in his decision that the subject matter of the correspondence related to Mr Wong seeking clarity on his role, duties and reporting line.
The correspondence was “not a disclosure of information concerning any wrongdoing by the respondent” and could not be a protected disclosure, he wrote.
Mr O’Neill found Mr Wong suffered discrimination on the grounds of family status in breach of the Employment Equality Act when the claimant was told his role “might not exist” if he went out on parental leave.
He awarded €31,114.20 – three months’ pay – for the breach.
The adjudicator found further that upon his return to work from the leave, Mr Wong was “subjected to a range of unfavourable treatment”.
Mr Wong “reasonably perceived” that a change to his reporting line was a diminution of his job – while he also faced a lack of clarity on his position and duties and exclusion from normal work communications.
Mr O’Neill also noted the imposition of “escalating measures” including putting Mr Wong on a PIP, extending his probation and issuing the final written warning.
“I am satisfied that these actions, taken together, amount to penalisation and that there is a clear and direct link between this treatment and the complainant’s exercise of his statutory entitlement to parent’s leave,” Mr O’Neill wrote.
He awarded Mr Wong €14,360.40 for the penalisation in breach of the Parental Leave Act.
Mr Wong had said in his evidence there was a “pattern of unreasonable management practices” at the company – pointing to his being called to a 7am meeting “without sufficient notice” in June 2025 and then being subjected to “adverse treatment” as a result.
The WRC accepted Mr Wong’s uncontested evidence that he worked three hours every Saturday and Sunday in June 2025 to fulfil a management direction that he complete daily sales income reports seven days a week.
Mr Wong was awarded a further €3,500 for breaches of his rights to Sunday premium pay and a weekly rest period in June 2025 under the terms of the Organisation of Working Time Act 2005.
The WRC also awarded Mr Wong €2,029.60 under the Payment of Wages Act in relation to am unpaid pension contribution.
The total sum awarded in the case was €51,004.20.
