A senior manager is suing Canadian property giant Brookfield, claiming she was made redundant while on maternity leave and replaced by the man hired to act in her job.
Kelly Dyball is alleging that three of Brookfield Properties’ senior managers dismissed her because she exercised her right to return to work on a part-time basis after having a child.
She also accuses the property company, a subsidiary of Brookfield Asset Management, of cutting her project bonus of up to $342,400 by 20 per cent by unlawfully subtracting time spent on paid parental leave.
In its defence filed in court, The Australian Financial Review reports that Brookfield opted to keep their new male development manager over Dyball because of his superior skills and “the need for continuity in resourcing”.
Before Dyball’s maternity leave, Brookfield had featured her in several of their media as a symbol of diversity for women in leadership.
In one post on Linkedin two years ago, the company writes that Dyball “is just one example of how we’re supporting women in the construction industry”.
In 2017, Dyball was hired to manage Brookfield’s development of land in Western Australia. In mid-2022, she took parental leave and her court statement says that Brookfield recruited a man to fill her role while she was away.
Dyball extended her leave until the middle of this year, but 15 months in, she alleges a Brookfield senior vice president and vice president advised her that the company was pro-rating her bonus to 80 per cent of the maximum, or $274,000, to account for the time she actually worked on a project before parental leave.
In court documents, Dyball argues the company policy on bonus explicitly said “no pro-rating… based upon time worked”. Citing discrimination against her based on her sex and family responsibilities, Dyball alleges that by reducing her bonus because of her parental leave, Brookfield unlawfully discriminated against her.
In April, Dyball formally requested to work three days a week before planning to return to work in May. Two days later, the senior vice president, vice president and a human resources manager told her that her role was redundant. The reasoning they said was there was not enough work and no suitable redeployment roles.
She was offered a letter of termination with a settlement deed promising an ex-gratia payment of $18,000 if signed. And it was made known that Brookfield was keeping the male hired to act in her job.
Dyball argues that the redundancy was to prevent her return to her pre-parental leave position.
The court case brought by Dyball is happening as Labor’s new serious contravention laws come into place. These new laws increase the maximum fines to $4.7 million for employers who knowingly or recklessly breach workplace laws.