Mr. D
(Represented by Egan O’Reilly Solicitors)
vs
A Government Department
(Represented by Mr. Kerr B.L. instructed by the CSSO)
1. DISPUTE
1.1 The dispute concerns claims by Mr. D that he was subjected to discriminatory treatment by a Government Department on the grounds of disability within the meaning of Section 6 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2007 and contrary to the provisions of Section 8 of those Acts.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 The complainant submitted 8 claims under the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2004 on the following issues:
· Work-Sharing
· Refused Increment
· Refund of Fees
· Work-Sharing (11.00a.m. – 5.00p.m.)
· Verbal Abuse
· Victimisation
· Flexi-time Credit
· Discriminatory Dismissal
Over a period of time he withdrew all of the claims with the exception of his claims relating to work-sharing (11.00a.m. – 5.00p.m.) and the non-payment of an increment.
2.2 The complainant referred his complaint of discriminatory treatment in the above two matters to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 17th May, 2005 under the provisions of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2004. In accordance with her powers under Section 75 of those Acts the Director then delegated the claims to Gerardine Coyle, Equality Officer on 30th March, 2007 for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part VII of these Acts. Following receipt of submissions a joint hearing took place on 23rd January, 2008. Further information was received from the parties and the final information was received on 8th February, 2008.
3. SUMMARY OF THE COMPLAINANT’S SUBMISSION
Failure to provide reasonable accommodation:
3.1 The complainant states that he applied for reasonable accommodation under Section 16 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 in September, 2004 to work on the basis of an 11.00a.m. to 5.00p.m. work-sharing pattern from Monday to Friday. It is the complainant’s submission that this could be accommodated on the computer payroll system at minimal administrative cost to the respondent as a 9.00a.m. to 3.00p.m. work-sharing pattern is in place in the organisation. According to the complainant he applied for this work-sharing pattern because the unavoidable long-term use of medically prescribed psychoactive medication makes him drowsy in the morning and has led to an irregular and disturbed sleep pattern. The complainant says that he was working an afternoon pattern only at the time of application and he considered that the longer working hours would improve his performance particularly since in the previous two years prior to his application he had been carrying out a full-time HEO job in half the time and at half the pay. Despite the fact that he had applied to work half time the complainant says that his line managers certified that his post was not suitable for work sharing without a work-sharing partner. The complainant says that Human Resources ignored this and in effect he was doing a full-time Higher Executive Officer job in half the time and for half the pay.
3.2 The complainant says that Human Resources asked that his doctor submit a report on the matter and on receipt of that report the respondent would be prepared to consider work-sharing patterns outside the types provided for in the Work Sharing Circular. It was also stated to the complainant by Human Resources that the respondent had no details of his medical condition on file. The complainant says that when he received his personnel file under the Freedom of Information Acts he discovered that a diagnosis of schizophrenia had been on his file since 1981. In 1995 consultant doctors revised this and according to his current consultant the complainant has shown no symptoms of any formal psychiatric disorder over the past 12 years.
3.3 The complainant states that he asked his consultant to submit a report supporting his request to the Chief Medical Officer (hereinafter to be referred to as the CMO) but he said that he would submit a report only at the specific request of the CMO and not otherwise. As a consequence the complainant wrote to the CMO requesting reasonable accommodation in relation to his work-sharing pattern and asking that he request a report from his consultant. According to the complainant the CMO refused his request to seek a medical report from his consultant. The complainant says that on 4th February, 2005 the Personnel Officer refused his request for reasonable accommodation on principle stating that to grant such a request would create a free-for-all in the respondent organisation. It is the complainant’s submission that his application was on the basis of a severe sleep disorder, which affected his attendance and punctuality over his years of employment. The complainant says that he attended a Sleep Disorder Consultant in the Mater Hospital in 2000 and following an overnight sleep study she confirmed that he had a very disturbed sleep pattern with a high return to wake index and that there was a drug effect shown in his EEG.
3.4 The complainant says that throughout his 24 years of employment no detailed individual needs assessment of his disability was ever carried out by the respondent which he claims suggests that the respondent failed in its duty of care and safety to him provided for in the Health and Safety Acts throughout these years. It is the complainant’s submission that, at no time, since 4th February, 2005 did Human Resources, either orally or in writing, state that it was prepared to change this decision in relation to his request for reasonable accommodation. The complainant asks the Equality Officer to find that the respondent has breached the Employment Equality Acts in relation to his request for reasonable accommodation; that an order for compensation is made and a direction given to the respondent to put in place measures to equality proof all future requests for reasonable accommodation, particularly those of an atypical work-sharing pattern.
Non-payment of Increment:
3.5 The complainant says that every member of the respondent organisation received 5 days PMDS training in 2001. The PMDS process was introduced in the respondent organisation on 1st January, 2002 and a Role Profile had to be drawn up for each employee, two interim reviews and an end of year Annual Review of Performance. According to the complainant his Role Profile was prepared in 2002, there was one interim review and no annual review. His Role Profile was again prepared in 2003 but there were no interim or annual reviews. Then in 2004 the Role Profile was completed and there were no interim or annual reviews. The complainant says that in January, 2005 no Role Profile was prepared and in July of that year he requested a Role Profile meeting with his line manager. According to the complainant he alerted Human Resources on several occasions throughout 2003 and 2004 to the fact that the PMDS process was not being implemented in this work area. The complainant says that his increment (which was the final point on the scale) was refused on 4th January, 2003 and thereafter at six monthly intervals.
3.6 It is the complainant’s submission that throughout this period he was never allowed to defend his performance or discuss perceived performance issues with his line managers. The complainant says that his increment was refused in the context of the failure of his line managers to implement the PMDS process in a coherent and adequate way and was refused for reasons relating to his disability. It is the complainant’s submission that the completely erratic and unpredictable management style of his line managers played a large part in this matter. The complainant asks the Equality Officer to find that the respondent breached the Employment Equality Acts in relation to the non-award of his increment and to make an order for compensation accordingly. He further seeks a direction that the respondent put in place measures to equality proof the awarding of increments.
4. SUMMARY OF THE RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSION
Failure to provide reasonable accommodation:
4.1 The respondent confirms that the complainant sought a non-standard work-sharing pattern of 11.00a.m. to 5.00p.m. as he considered that the longer working hours would improve his performance and discharge a heavy workload while at the same time admitting that his medication made him drowsy in the mornings. It is the respondent’s argument that this line of argument ignores two major issues namely that the complainant had a very poor record of attending an afternoons only work pattern, that his performance was poor and his work was regularly discharged by his line managers. The respondent further notes that the complainant’s request to work from 11.00a.m. to 5.00p.m. was one of a number of requests for different work-sharing patterns. For example in on 27th August, 2003 the complainant advised Human Resources that he had reconsidered a recent application for a return to full-time working and that he wished to work afternoons only, Monday to Friday; on 11th June, 2004 the complainant stated in an e-mail that he was withdrawing his request for ‘reasonable accommodation’ under Section 16 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 and that he was happy to continue the afternoon only work-sharing arrangement at present; two weeks later on 28th June, 2004 the complainant changed his position again and requested a return to full-time working with effect from 8th September, 2004.
4.2 The respondent denies that it refused the complainant’s request for a change in his work-sharing pattern so that he could work from 11.00a.m. to 5.00p.m. However it says that, having approved three different work-sharing patterns for the complainant, it wrote to the complainant and clearly stated that “in order to give full and informed consideration to your request for ‘reasonable accommodation’ I would suggest that you submit to the Chief Medical Officer, a comprehensive medical report from your consultant detailing your disability and its impact, if any, on your ability to give regular and dependable attendance and to perform the full range of duties of a HEO. On receipt of this report the Chief Medical Officer will be in a position to advise the Department on these issues and we will be in a position to consider your request fully”. According to the respondent the complainant failed to provide the CMO with a comprehensive medical report and in those circumstances the respondent was unable to consider and possibly accede to the complainant’s request in terms of his preferred work-sharing pattern.
4.3 The respondent says that on 4th January, 2005 the complainant e-mailed Human Resources and set out options on the best way forward to endeavour to resolve matters informally and get his career back on track. In this regard the complainant set out solutions to four outstanding issues namely the new work-sharing arrangement, his flexi-time deficit, refund of fees and the non-payment of an increment. According to the respondent Human Resources thanked the complainant for his proposals and said that it would ask the CMO to seek a medical report from the complainant’s consultant. Then in early February, 2005 the CMO advised the complainant that he would not be seeking a report. It was on the basis of this that Human Resources informed the complainant that doctor-to-doctor correspondence would not provide a sufficient basis to accede to the request for a modified working pattern. The respondent says that Human Resources discussed the complainant’s case with the CMO again in October, 2005 and noted that the respondent had ongoing concerns about the complainant’s work performance. The respondent had reduced the complainant’s hours at his request and was not prepared to increase his hours until it was satisfied that he could perform his duties as required. According to the respondent the CMO confirmed that this was the correct approach in the circumstances. The respondent notes that the complainant, in a letter to the Secretary General of the respondent organisation, recognised his problems and inconsistencies when he stated – “I recognise the Department had grounds for concern in relation to my attendance, punctuality and to a lesser extent, underperformance (I think I had gone stale in the job after over 15 years as a HEO)”.
4.4 In conclusion the respondent says that it frequently provided reasonable accommodation to the complainant and it was prepared to go further and to work outside the terms of the Work-Sharing Circular subject to the submission of supporting medical evidence, which the complainant failed to provide in relation to his disability. In giving due consideration to this claim the respondent says that the Equality Officer should have regard to the fact that it had made arrangements and accommodations for the complainant over the years, that there was a lack of a clearly stated and supported basis for his specific request in September, 2004 (the 11.00a.m. to 5.00p.m. work-sharing pattern), his frequent requests for changes to his work patterns, his poor attendance record and his lack of on-the-job performance.
4.5 The respondent notes that the complainant, in his submission, has made the following statement:
“Throughout my 24 years of employment no individual needs assessment of my disability was ever carried out by the respondent which suggests the respondent failed in its duty of care and safety to me provided for in the Health and Safety Acts throughout the years.”
It is the respondent’s submission that this allegation has no basis for the following reasons:
· There was never an obligation on the respondent to carry out an individual needs assessment of disability under Health and Safety Legislation or otherwise;
· There was no request to the respondent by the complainant for such an assessment;
· The complainant was very familiar with the processes for making such special requests;
· The respondent had a record of accommodating staff with special needs where such requests were made or where it was perceived that they might be needed.
Non-payment of increment:
4.6 The respondent states that all remuneration including increments payable to Civil Servants is subject to the specific sanction of the Minister for Finance. In practice that Minister sanctions revisions to salary scales from time to time but, by circular letters, has delegated authority to Departments to make decisions on increments. Up to the time of the complainant’s retirement the respondent says that only increment report forms (as opposed to the Staff Appraisal Scheme) were to be used to determine eligibility for increments. According to the respondent the complainant would have been familiar with the processes, which take place before an increment is granted or withheld. As a Higher Executive Officer of some 15 years he would have contributed to increment reports of Executive Officers.
4.7 The respondent states that there is no automatic right to an increment. It has to be earned based on a range of factors including work output, quality of work, general conduct, punctuality, etc. According to the respondent the complainant failed to have increments paid on the following occasions:
· 7th July, 1985 – due to poor punctuality and attendance
(It was subsequently allowed from 7th October, 1985)
· 4th January, 2003 – due to below average work output and quality as well as poor punctuality.
The respondent notes that the complainant was also refused an uplift to a higher scale in September, 2000 because his sick leave record was well over the agreed limit. According to the respondent the complainant appealed this decision to Human Resources and he supported his appeal with a letter from his GP. The respondent says that while the letter was not precise in terms of illness or treatment it was decided to give the benefit of the higher scale to the complainant.
4.8 The respondent states that there are a number of errors in the complainant’s submission in relation to this allegation. Firstly is the link between the PMDS process and the granting of increments. In 2003 assessments were not considered in relation to the granting of increments. Decisions on the granting of increments were based on the standard increment form and nothing else. Secondly the respondent says that the complainant is incorrect in laying the blame on his managers for a failure to fully implement the PMDS process. According to the respondent the complainant received two days training in PMDS in 2001 and it was a matter for each officer to draw up his/her own role profile – this being a fundamental part of the PMDS process. The respondent says that Training Section sent numerous reminders to each individual in the early years of PMDS about the need to start the process. It is the respondent’s submission that the complainant’s commitment to PMDS has to be questioned because a role profile had to be drawn up for him in 2002 and again in 2003. The respondent says that his complaint that no Role Profile was drawn up for him in 2004 and 2005 is yet another indication of his failure to proactively advance his work performance. Thirdly the respondent denies that the complainant’s increment was refused for reasons related to his disability. The complainant was refused an increment because the increment report form showed that he received a ‘below average’ rating under the headings of ‘Work Output’ and ‘Quality of Work’. He received ‘average’ ratings under the headings of ‘Effectiveness with Others’ and ‘General Conduct’. The respondent says that his poor attendance/punctuality record during the period under review was also a factor in the determination that his ‘Overall Rating’ on the increment form was ‘Below Average’.
4.9 The respondent states that the complainant subsequently appealed the decision to withhold the increment to both the Personnel Officer and the Assistant Secretary, Corporate Services. His appeal was based primarily on his perception that he was being penalised because of his state of health, which, in turn, was due to his disability. According to the respondent the complainant received responses to these appeals in which he was clearly told that the decision was based on issues of performance and attendance and not his state of health. In his reply the Personnel Officer also offered to assist the complainant in dealing with his disability. The reply sent by the Assistant Secretary noted that attendance issues had been discussed extensively with the complainant and that performance issues had been drawn to his attention. It was also stated that the complainant had the ability to perform at a much higher level than he was doing as evidenced by the fact that he was currently able to undertake challenging and very commendable academic pursuits.
4.10 The respondent notes that in his submission the complainant has stated ‘My increment which was the final point on the HEO (Higher Scale) was refused on4 January, 2003and thereafter at six monthly intervals. Throughout this period I was never allowed to defend my performance or discuss perceived performance issues with my line managers’. According to the respondent this is not correct at the time the initial decision was taken or when it was subsequently reviewed. The respondent says that the complainant had a detailed performance review on 21st January, 2004 and at the request of Human Resources a request was sent to the Principal Officer of the complainant’s section seeking a full report on his performance and attendance. Before this report was finalised in the section a copy was given to the complainant and the respondent notes that he consulted with his Union rather than dealing directly with his manager. While a meeting had been arranged the complainant phoned on the morning of that meeting to say that he would not be attending because the document he had received was pre-emptive and he said that, as an alternative, his PMDS should have taken place.
5. CONCLUSIONS OF THE EQUALITY OFFICER
5.1 The issue for decision in this claim is whether or not the complainant was subjected to discriminatory treatment by the respondent within the meaning of Section 6 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2007 on the grounds of his disability and in contravention of Section 8 of those Acts. In making my decision in this claim I have taken into account all the submissions, both written and oral, from the parties.
Failure to provide reasonable accommodation
5.2 It is the complainant’s contention that he was subjected to discriminatory treatment when he was not provided with reasonable accommodation (i.e. to work from 11.00a.m. to 5.00p.m. Monday to Friday) in terms of Section 16 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2004. The respondent has denied the allegation.
5.3 The complainant joined the Civil Service as an Executive Officer in June, 1982. He was appointed as a result of a special competition conducted by the Civil Service Commission in 1981 for disabled persons. At the time of appointment the respondent was notified that the complainant suffered from Schizophrenia and no special arrangements needed to be made for him. The complainant was employed by the Civil Service for some 24 years. During the course of that time (since 1979) I note that the complainant has been receiving medication by way of injection on a fortnightly basis, which has been administered by his G.P. In fact the complainant was on this medication when he joined the Civil Service and there has been no change in the medication since.
5.4 The respondent provided me with details of the complainant’s sick leave record from January, 2001 to May, 2006. I note that during that period the complainant had 118 sick leave absences. Between January, 2001 and February, 2005 the reason for the sick absence ranged from stomach upset; injuries to a body part; respiratory tract injections, neck strain; dental pain; etc. After February, 2005 11 out of 24 absences related to stress or work related stress. I am satisfied that, from the respondent’s perspective, none of the absences up to the time the complainant sought a work-sharing pattern of 11.00a.m. to 5.00p.m. related to his disability.
5.5 The respondent, in its submission, has stated that the complainant was granted work-sharing on four separate occasions as follows:
January, 1989 – January, 1990 - Week on, Week off
(to complete a degree)
February, 1999 – November, 2000 - Split Week (no reason given)
September, 2002 – September, 2003 - 4 day week (Wednesdays off) (no reason given)
September, 2003 – June, 2006 - Afternoons only (domestic reasons)
It is notable that two of the previous requests for work-sharing did not relate to his disability or the impact his medication was having on him. As no reason was given for the other requests for work-sharing there is no evidence that the requests related to his disability.
5.6 Section 16 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2004 states as follows:
“(1) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as requiring any person to recruit or promote an individual to a position, to retain an individual in a position, or to provide training or experience to an individual in relation to a position, if the individual –
(a) will not undertake … the duties attached to that position or will not accept … the conditions under which those duties are, or may be required to be, performed or
(b) is not … fully competent and available to undertake, and fully capable of undertaking, the duties attached to that position, having regard to the conditions under which those duties are, or may be required to be, performed.
.
.
.
(3) (a) For the purposes of this Act a person who has a disability is fully competent to undertake, and fully capable of undertaking, any duties if the person would be so fully competent and capable on reasonable accommodation … being provided by the person’s employer.
(b) The employer shall take appropriate measures, where needed in a particular case, to enable a person who has a disability –
(i) to have access to employment,
(ii) to participate or advance in employment or
(iii) to undergo training
unless the measure would impose a disproportionate burden on the employee.”
The purpose of this provision in the legislation is to facilitate the employment of persons with disabilities where with reasonable accommodation the disabled person can carry out all the duties of the role. I note that for 18 of the 24 years the complainant was employed, he was employed on a full-time basis and during this period he was promoted from the grade of Executive Officer to Higher Executive Officer. It is clear that during this period he had no requirement for reasonable accommodation. In May, 2004 the complainant applied for reasonable accommodation to work from 11.00a.m. to 5.00p.m. from Monday to Friday. Then on 11th June, 2004 he withdrew this application for no expressed reason. Then in September, 2004 he re-instated his request for reasonable accommodation. Before considering this request the respondent sought medical evidence of the impact of his disability on him which required that he be allowed work from 11.00a.m. to 5.00p.m. The complainant undertook to provide this but reverted to the respondent saying that his consultant would only provide a report if requested to do so by the Chief Medical Officer (CMO). I note that the complainant wrote to the CMO asking him to seek such a report from his consultant and the respondent indicated to the complainant that it would ask the CMO to seek such a report. The CMO wrote to the complainant stating that he would not do so. The respondent was unable to provide any documentation as to the reason for the CMO’s decision but stated that communications between the CMO and the respondent in this matter had been by way of a telephone conversation. It is on this basis that the complainant has argued that the respondent has failed in its duty of care to him as a disabled employee.
5.7 In its defence the respondent has contended that it is normal practice where an employee is seeking to be facilitated as in this case that the onus is on the employee to support his/her request with medical evidence. The respondent noted that the complainant was refused an up-lift to a higher scale in September, 2000 because his sick leave record was well in excess of agreed limits. The complainant appealed the decision to the Personnel Officer and supported this appeal with medical evidence. The respondent notes that the medical evidence was not precise in terms of the complainant’s illness or treatment. It is the respondent’s submission that a distinction can be drawn where it is imposing on obligation on an employee. In this regard the respondent notes that the complainant was on certified sick leave in August, 2005 for a period of ten weeks as a result of stress. In order to establish his fitness to resume employment the respondent asked the CMO to formally request a Doctor-to-Doctor report before clearing the complainant for a return to work. It is noteworthy that in the report from the complainant’s consultant he stated that the complainant has
“a long standing chronic medical condition that is currently stable, and has been stable for quite some time. He receives a course of treatment every two weeks, and this can result in him being somewhat fatigued for some days afterwards. This is a longstanding problem. Basically, he is at his normal baseline at present, although his health could be further improved if he made some lifestyle changes”.
5.8 At the hearing of this claim respondent questioned whether or not the complainant was suffering from a disability. The reason for this was because of a letter which the complainant had sent to the Secretary-General of the respondent organisation in August, 2006 an extract of which is as follows:
“It came as a pleasant surprise that the CMO was prepared to sign off on Form E.Gen for early retirement on medical grounds as my consultant had indicated that the diagnosis supplied by doctors at the time of entry in 1981 should never have been imputed to me and with regard to the diagnosis of chronic depression given by my GP to the CMO at the time of my retirement, my consultant who is Medical Director of a large academic teaching hospital and is one of the most qualified and experienced guys in the city of Dublin or indeed the whole country indicated in a report to the CMO in September, 2005 that I was not clinically depressed and that in the 12 years he has known me I have shown no symptoms of any formal psychiatric disorder. The treatment I was receiving was purely a precautionary measure and doctors often indicated to me over the years that I could probably survive without it.”
During the course of the hearing it was the complainant’s submission that he was suffering from a disability but the medical profession were unable to quantify it in terms of a name. However he stated that he was on a strong medication as a precaution and was administered by his G.P. by injection twice weekly. If taken off the medication the complainant stated that he would become emotionally distressed. The complainant stated that he did not want to be labelled as having Schizophrenia.
5.9 Having examined all of the evidence I find that, at the time the complainant sought reasonable accommodation, the evidence before the respondent was that he did suffer from a disability and that disability was Schizophrenia. To the respondent’s knowledge (from the CMO at the time) the complainant did not require any special facilities or accommodations in relation to this disability and after commencing employment the complainant did not notify the respondent of any special needs he required because of his disability. I note that throughout his career the complainant has, not only a history of seeking various accommodations for reasons other than his disability (see Appendix A), he has a history of withdrawing his application for these accommodations. By seeking a work-sharing arrangement of an 11.00a.m. to 5.00p.m. working day and then withdrawing this application it is my view that this behaviour undermines the complainant’s argument that this work-sharing arrangement was required for reasons of his disability. It is my view that the onus was on the complainant to support his application for reasonable accommodation with medical or other appropriate evidence outlining the reason for the request for the accommodation and the nature of the accommodation required to enable the complainant to be fully competent and capable of undertaking the duties of the position. Having received such a report the respondent could have opted to seek independent medical advice. I note that the respondent agreed to approach the CMO asking that a Doctor-to-Doctor report be obtained in relation to this request and for reasons unknown the CMO refused to take this course of action. In terms of this particular case there was no obligation on the respondent to approach the CMO regarding the complainant’s request for reasonable accommodation and therefore, in the circumstances of particular this case, the respondent cannot be penalised for its actions in this regard.
5.10 In conclusion I find that there is no merit to the complainant’s allegation of discriminatory treatment on the grounds of disability in relation to his request for reasonable accommodation.
Non-Payment of Increment
5.11 The respondent refused the complainant an increment on the final point of the HEO (Higher Scale) on 4th January, 2003. It is the complainant’s contention that this was discriminatory on the grounds of disability. As can be seen from the summary of his submission (paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 refer) his arguments in relation to the non-payment of the increment mostly relate to the respondent’s failure to properly implement the Performance Management System commonly known as PMDS. In response the respondent has stated that the complainant was refused an increment from 4th January, 2003 because his increment report form showed that he received a ‘below average’ rating under the headings of ‘Work Output’ and ‘Quality of Work’ and he received ‘average’ ratings under the headings of ‘Effectiveness with Others’ and ‘General Conduct’. According to the respondent his poor attendance/punctuality record during the period under review was also a factor in the determination that his ‘Overall Rating’ on the increment form was ‘below average’.
5.12 The complainant referred his claim of discriminatory treatment on the grounds of disability resulting from the respondent’s failure to pay him an increment on 17th May, 2005. The decision not to pay the increment was made on 4th January, 2003. I note that the complainant appealed this decision but the decision was up-held. According to the respondent the decision was reviewed but the complainant’s attendances and performance remained unchanged. In these circumstances he was not granted the increment. I find that the reason the complainant did not receive his increment was not because of his disability but purely based on the criteria set out on the increment form.
6. DECISION
6.1 In view of the foregoing I find that Mr. D was not subjected to discriminatory treatment by his employer (A Government Department) on the grounds of disability in terms of Sections 6 and 16 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2007 and in contravention of Section 8 of those Acts in relation to the provision of reasonable accommodation or the non-payment of an increment.
______________________
Gerardine Coyle
Equality Officer
5th March, 2008