Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Food and Beverage Assistant

A Hotel

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00017209-016

22/01/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00017209-017

22/01/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00017209-021

22/01/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00017209-022

22/01/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00017209-023

22/01/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000

CA-00017209-024

22/01/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 30 and 31 of the Maternity Protection Act 1994

CA-00017209-031

22/01/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 30 and 31 of the Maternity Protection Act 1994

CA-00017209-032

22/01/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 30 and 31 of the Maternity Protection Act 1994

CA-00017209-033

22/01/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 30 and 31 of the Maternity Protection Act 1994

CA-00017209-034

22/01/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 30 and 31 of the Maternity Protection Act 1994

CA-00017209-035

22/01/2018

The Complainant commenced her employment with the Respondent on 7th June 2013. She is employed as Food and Beverage Assistant. She was on sick leave from 18th November 2017 until she commenced maternity leave on 6th May 2018. On 22nd January 2018 the Complainant referred some 21 claims to the WRC Adjudication Services. She subsequently withdrew 10. The Complainant attended the hearing unrepresented. She confirmed that she is happy to proceed without representation. During the hearing the Complainant was offered an adjournment to allow her to seek an advice and/or representation. She was firm in objecting and wished to proceed unrepresented.

The Respondent rejects all the claims. The Respondent argued that the complaints stem from the fact that the Complainant was alleged to have been involved in the posting of an unfavourable review of the Respondent on the website Trip Advisor.   The Complainant last worked for the Respondent on 15th November 2017. On this date she attended a meeting with the Directors of the Respondent in relation to the trip Advisor review.

The Complainant submits that she did not receive a statement in writing of her terms of employment until January 2018.

The Respondent submits that the Complainant was furnished with her terms and conditions of employment on 3rd January 2018. Copy was exhibited at the hearing. The Respondent submits that the failure to furnish the Complainant with a written statement of her terms of employment was an oversight on the part of the company, one which was rectified in the course of the correspondence with the Complainant. The Respondent argues that in so far as the Complainant’s right to a written statement of her terms and conditions of employment were infringed, any infringement was de minimus and the Complainant was in no way prejudiced by the failure to furnish her with a written statement. The policies and procedures of the Respondent were well established and known to the Complainant. The Respondent submits that the Complainant never raised any grievance in relation to her contractual entitlements prior to the Trip Advisor review on 22nd November 2017.

There was no dispute that the Respondent did not furnish the Complainant with a written statement of her terms and conditions of employment within the time frame prescribed in the Act.

Section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 requires that:

“(1) An employer shall, not later than 2 months after the commencement of an employee’s employment with the employer, give or cause to be given to the employee a statement in writing containing the following particulars …… “.

I find that the Respondent was in breach of Section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information), Act 1994 and that the Complainant should have been furnished with the written statement of Terms and Conditions of Employment within two months after the commencement of employment.

Section 7(2)(d) of the Act states that an employer can be ordered “to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as the adjudication officer considers just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances, but not exceeding 4 weeks' remuneration”.

Taking all of the circumstances of this case into consideration I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation of €500.

The Complainant submits that she was not notified of a change to her terms of employment. The Complainant submits that there have been a number of changes during her employment such as an increase in her rate of pay, an increase in the number of hours worked as per her request and the move from housekeeping to the restaurant.

The Respondent submits that the Complainant was furnished with a written statement of her terms and conditions of employment in January 2018. The Respondent submits that the statement was consistent with the particulars of her employment and in no way were the terms and conditions of her employment varied unilaterally without reference to the Complainant.

Having reviewed the parties’ submissions I find that since the commencement of her employment with the Respondent the Complainant’s terms of employment have changed. The Complainant did not take issue with the increased rate of pay. As per her own admission any other changes referred to by the Complainant were implemented following a request from her. I find that the written statement of terms and conditions of employment as issued on 3rd January 2018 reflected the actual terms of employment at the time.

I declare that the complaint is not well founded.

The Worker submits that she was bullied and harassed by her supervisor Mr N. The Worker submits that it was manifested by the way he spoke to her and called her names. The Worker argues that Mr N would give her more work than other staff members and that he would not let her serve the afternoon tea even though she loved it and was good at it. She claims that she reported the matter to the Employer and attended two meetings in that regard. The Worker submits that she went on sick leave on 7th June 2017. She confirmed that she discussed the matter with Mr N at a staff social event at some stage in June/ July 2017 and they agreed to improve their working relationship. The Worker noted that she was given help after her return to work in the end of September. The Worker argued that same time after her return she again began experiencing bullying from Mr N. She did not report the matter to the Employer at that stage. The Worker stated that there was a manager, Mr A who was a “nice man” but she never reported the matter to him either.

The Worker submits that she has also written to the Employer with an official complaint against Ms S, Financial Controller as she did not deal appropriately with the Worker’s forms and health & safety leave.

The Employer submits that the Worker submitted two grievances against Mr N and Ms S which were investigated by the Employer. The Employer held that the complaints were unfounded. The Employer submits that it had a grievance procedure in place during the Worker’s employment and it was open to the Worker to submit a formal complaint in respect of any alleged bullying and harassment or discriminatory treatment. The Employer claims that no such complaints were received until after the Worker met with the Employer to discuss the Trip Advisor review.

At the hearing, Ms S, Director of the Employer confirmed that the Worker made, in fact, a complaint against Mr N at some stage in April 2017. Letter to that effect was exhibited by the Worker. Ms S noted that that the hotel is a family run business in a small village. For that reason, a decision was made to deal with the complaints in informal way. The Employer submits that the complaint against Ms N largely stems from the Worker’ s misunderstanding around the overlap between health and safety leave and illness benefit. In relation to the complaint against Mr N, the Director of the Respondent, Ms S said that she spoke with Mr N and he informed her that he had difficulties with the Worker’s attitude towards him and his instructions. In plain words he told her that the Worker would not do what she was asked to do. Ms S stated that she facilitated a meeting between the Worker and Mr N and she was informed that the issues were resolved. The Employer was not aware that there were any further incidents between the parties. Ms S noted that she met with the Worker on her return from the sick leave and emphasised that she has an open-door policy. The Worker assured her that she is happy to be back. Ms S noted also that the Worker could have approached her Manager, Mr A whom she considered to be a nice man and alert him of any issues.

The Worker made a number of allegations mainly against Mr N. The Worker spoke in very generic terms and was unable to provide details of specific incidents. She confirmed that she had initially raised the matter with the Employer and a meeting was facilitated at which the parties agreed to improve their working relationship. The Worker said that she felt that this did not happen but she did not bring it to the Employer’s attention. The parties confirmed that Mr N left his employment in March 2018.

In respect to Ms S, there was no dispute that the Worker sent her complaint of discrimination and harassment against Ms S to the Employer on 18th December 2017. The Worker was on sick leave at the time followed by maternity leave. It appears that the Worker was not informed of any investigation in respect of this complaint.

I note that the Worker wrote to the Employer again on 8th January 2018 stating that she was being bullied, harassed and discriminated against by Mr N and Ms S. By letter dated 8th February the Employer queried whether the Worker wished to proceed with the formal complaints against the two employees. The Worker replied on 14th February outlining, amongst others, her grievances with Ms S and Mr N.

I find that firstly it was up to the Employer to utilise the applicable procedures to establish whether or not the Worker was in fact bullied, harassed or/and discriminated against. The Employer has very detailed procedures in place in relation to dignity at work and bullying and harassment complaints. The Worker has referred a serious complaint to the Employer about the treatment being received from her supervisor Mr N and the Financial Controller, Ms S. I find that the Employer did not instigate its own procedures following the Worker’s written complaints. However, the Worker confirmed that she did not bring to the attention of the Employer that the informal approach and the agreement reached in respect of her complaint against Mr N did not bring the desired result. The Worker emphasised on numerous occasions at the hearing that there are many issues and problems within the Employer organisation and that she feels she is not listen to.

It appears that there is accumulation of issues which the Parties need to resolve. These include the complaints by the Worker and the matter of the on-line review. The investigation into the on-line review is a separate matter and not a subject to this dispute. The Employer confirmed that it took appropriate steps to conduct a fair and robust investigation into this matter.

I note that Mr N is no longer working for the Employer. I note also that the Worker was on sick leave and is currently on maternity leave.

As things stand the Parties will find it challenging to return to respectful working relationship taking the unresolved issues. I therefore recommend that immediately after her return to work the Worker provides the Employer with a formal written statement of detailed complaint prior to an investigation process commencing. This must be shared, by the Respondent, with the person(s) whom the allegations are made against to ensure proper and fair procedure. I then recommend that the parties mutually agree a third-party Investigator to complete an Investigation into the claims made by the Complainant and, subject to due process, this Investigation should be completed within two months of the date of receiving the written complaint and its findings made know to the parties also within that time frame.

I see no further role for the Adjudicator to make any further recommendation on the claims.

The Complainant submits that she was discriminated against by the Respondent on the grounds of gender and disability (pregnancy). The Complainant submits that the Respondent treated her unlawfully by discriminating against her in conditions of employment, harassing her, promoting her, giving her training, victimising her and other, which she did not specify. The Complainant withdrew her claim in respect of dismissal. The Complainant submits that the most recent date of discrimination was 15th November 2017. She also claims that there is a collective agreement in place which contains discrimination provisions.

The Complainant submits that for months she was discriminated against, bullied and harassed by her supervisor, Mr N. She claims that this ‘caused her head and neck injury’ and led to two weeks hospitalisation. The Complainant submits that she was out sick for three months afterwards. The Complainant submits that her manager had multiple complainants against Mr N from 10 other employees and they were ignored. The Complainant submits that she was called names, she was given extra work and was overworked. She claims that she was never given any training and was blamed for things she did not do. The Complainant submits that when she was 24 weeks pregnant she was advised by her GP to take health & safety benefit leave. The Complainant claims that on 21st November 2017 Ms S, Financial Controller received forms in that regard but the Complainant did not receive them back. The Complainant claims that she was asked to visit the Respondent’s doctor who disagreed with her GP. The Complainant submits that Ms S ‘does not return anything’ and provides the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection (DEASP) with incorrect information. The Complainant claims that up to the date of her complaint she did not receive any money from the Respondent or from the DEASP because she is being ignored. The Complainant argues that in 2013 she was pregnant and was forced to leave her job on health and safety leave. This time the advice of her doctor is ignored. The Complainant submits that on 15th December 2017 she sent an email to the Respondent’s General Manager stating that if the Respondent takes on full responsibility of her working she will work. However, she did not receive a reply. The Complainant submits that the Respondent is corrupt and will destroy any evidence in that regard and will pay other staff to lie for the Respondent.

In her direct evidence the Complainant confirmed that in July 2017 she has some mental health difficulties and was prescribed antidepressants. However, she emphasised that she has no disability. She confirmed that she did not inform the Respondent of her health problems. The Complainant also confirmed that she was discriminated on the grounds of disability due to her pregnancy.

In respect of the discrimination on the grounds of gender the Complainant submitted in her direct evidence that she was asked to carry trays which other women were not asked to carry.

The Complainant stated that she felt that Mr N harassed and victimised her. She stated that she was never allowed to prove herself. The Complainant confirmed that she never applied for promotion. The Complainant noted that she wanted to complete a cocktail making training at some stage but was not permitted. The Complainant was not sure when did that happen.

The Respondent denies any discriminatory treatment. The Respondent argues that the Complainant’s grievance with the Respondent largely emanates from the external HR investigation into the Trip Advisor review which involved the publication of pernicious allegations about some of the Complainant’s colleagues working for the Respondent. The Respondent submits that the Complainant has not established a prima facie case. The Respondent submits that it was not aware of the Complainant having a disability and that until 28th November the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant’s pregnancy.

The issue for decision by me is whether or not the Complainant was treated in a discriminatory manner in circumstances amounting to discrimination on grounds of gender and disability in terms of Section 6 of the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015 (the Act).

Section 6 of the Act stipulates: “Discrimination for the purposes of this Act

(1) For the purposes of this Act and without prejudice to its provisions relating to discrimination occurring in particular circumstances discrimination shall be taken to occur where—

(a) a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as the “discriminatory grounds”) which—

(i) exists,

(ii) existed but no longer exists,

(iii) may exist in the future, or

(iv) is imputed to the person concerned,

(2) As between any 2 persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are—

(a) that one is a woman and the other is a man (in this Act referred to as “the gender ground”),…

(g) that one is a person with a disability and the other either is not or is a person with a different disability (in this Act referred to as “the disability ground”),”

Section 8 of the Act provides as follows:

“Discrimination by the employer etc.

8.(1) In relation to— (a) access to employment, (b) conditions of employment, (c) training or experience for or in relation to employment, (d) promotion or re-grading, or (e) classification of posts,

Section 85A (1) of the Act states: “Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a complainant from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination in relation to him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.”   This means that the Complainant must establish primary facts upon which the claim of discrimination is grounded and then the burden of proof passes to the Respondent. In Determination EDA082 McCarthy v Cork City Council the Labour Court pointed out that at the initial stage the complainant is merely seeking to establish a prima facie case. Hence, it is not necessary to establish that the conclusion of discrimination is the only, or indeed the most likely, explanation which can be drawn from the facts proved. It is sufficient that the presumption is within the range of inferences which can reasonably be drawn from those facts.

In Melbury Developments v Arturs Valpeters the Labour Court, whilst examining the circumstances in which the probative burden of proof operates stated that a complainant "must first establish facts from which discrimination may be inferred. What those facts are will vary from case to case and there is no closed category of facts which can be relied upon. All that is required is that they be of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of discrimination. However, they must be established as facts on credible evidence. Mere speculation or assertions, unsupported by evidence, cannot be elevated to a factual basis upon which an inference of discrimination can be drawn". It added that "the burden of establishing the primary facts lay fairly and squarely on the Complainant and the language of this provision admits of no exceptions to that evidential rule”.

I find the Complainant’s submission and evidence somewhat confusing. Taking the complexity of the matters raised I offered the Complainant an adjournment to allow her to seek an advice and / or representation. The Complainant strongly declined.

In relation to the Complainant’s claim that she was discriminated against on the grounds of disability due to pregnancy I find that pregnancy does not constitute disability within the meaning of the Act. In respect of the other health issues mentioned at the hearing, the Complainant was vague as to what exactly they were and she confirmed that at no stage she made the Respondent aware of them. I find that the Complainant did not establish prima facie case of discrimination on the ground of disability.

In respect of discrimination on the ground of gender I note that the Complainant submitted that she was asked to carry tray and other women were not asked to do. This contention does not support the Complainant’s claim of discrimination on the ground of gender. However, Section (2A) of the Act stipulates that “Without prejudice to the generality of subsections (1) and (2), discrimination on the gender ground shall be taken to occur where, on a ground related to her pregnancy or maternity leave, a woman employee is treated, contrary to any statutory requirement, less favourably than another employee is, has been or would be treated.”

It is clear from the Act that any discrimination on a ground related to pregnancy constitutes discrimination on gender ground. The Complainant erroneously claimed that she was discriminated on the ground of disability due to her pregnancy. I am cognisant of the fact that the Complainant is a lay person and she was unrepresented at the hearing. For the sake of fairness, I am therefore going to consider whether or not the Complainant was discriminated on the ground of gender due to her pregnancy. The Complainant submits that the most recent date of discrimination was 15th November 2017. There was no dispute between the Parties that the Respondent was not informed of the Complainant’s pregnancy until 28th November 2017. Therefore, I find that the Complainant has not established a prima facie case of discrimination on the ground of gender.

The Complainant did not proffer any evidence in support of her claim of harassment and victimisation.

I find that the Complainant has not established a prima facie case of discrimination on the ground of disability and/or gender. The Complainant did not proffer any evidence in support of her claim of harassment and victimisation.

The Complainant submits that she has not received equal pay because of her gender. In her written referral to the WRC the Complainant did not name a comparator.

In her direct evidence the Complainant submitted that she asked for a pay rise but did not get it. The Complainant was unable to provide any specifics in respect of comparators. She provided three first names of male employees of the Respondent and noted that although she does not have details of their pay, their length of service and experience she believes that are in receipt of a higher hourly rate of pay than she is. She confirmed that the three individuals are employed in a different department of the Respondent’s organisation.

The Respondent denies any discriminatory treatment of the Complainant. The Respondent argues that the three named individuals are bartenders and work in a different department of the Respondent’s organisation and therefore do not perform “like work”. The Respondent submits that the rates of pay within the Respondent’s organisation are experience based.

The Employment Equality Act provides as follows:

“18. Application of equality principles to both men and women

(1)

(a) Subject to paragraph (b), for the purpose of this Part “A” and “B” represent 2 persons of opposite sex so that, where A is a woman, B is a man, and vice versa.

(b) For the purposes of this Part (except section 19 and 20), where the treatment of a woman on a ground related to her pregnancy or maternity leave is, by virtue of section 6(2A), in issue, “B” is either a man or a woman.

(2) Subject to subsection (1), nothing in this Act affects the operation of the Interpretation Act [2005], in so far as [it provides] that, unless the contrary intention appears—

(a) words importing the masculine gender shall be construed as importing also the feminine gender, and

(b) words importing the feminine gender shall be construed as also importing the masculine gender.

19. Entitlement to equal remuneration

(1) It shall be a term of the contract under which A is employed that, subject to this Act, A shall at any time be entitled to the same rate of remuneration for the work which A is employed to do as B who, at that or any other relevant time, is employed to do like work by the same or an associated employer.

(5) Subject to subsection (4), nothing in this Part shall prevent an employer from paying, on grounds other than the gender ground, different rates of remuneration to different employees.

7. Like work

(1) Subject to subsection (2), for the purposes of this Act, in relation to the work which one person is employed to do, another person shall be regarded as employed to do like work if—

(a) both perform the same work under the same or similar conditions, or each is interchangeable with the other in relation to the work,

(b) the work performed by one is of a similar nature to that performed by the other and any differences between the work performed or the conditions under which it is performed by each either are of small importance in relation to the work as a whole or occur with such irregularity as not to be significant to the work as a whole, or

(c) the work performed by one is equal in value to the work performed by the other, having regard to such matters as skill, physical or mental requirements, responsibility and working conditions.”

It is therefore an essential requirement of an equal pay claim under any of the discriminatory grounds for the Complainant to identify a comparator who is employed to do ‘like work’ by the same or an associated employer.   The existence of ‘like work’ between a complainant and comparator is a necessary condition to any entitlement to equal pay under the Act.

In the Labour Court case of G4S Secure Solutions (IRE) Limited and Noel Cantwell EDA1638 the Labour Court stated that:

“It is settled law that an equal pay claim must be grounded on the difference in remuneration of the Complainant relative to that of a real as opposed to a hypothetical comparator with whom he or she is engaged on like work. This was made clear by Budd J. in Brides v Minister for Agriculture [1998] 4 IR 250.”

The Complainant’s equal pay claim in based on her belief that some male staff members are paid more than her. At the hearing the Complainant mentioned vaguely three individuals. However, she did not proffer any evidence in that regard. It was not in dispute that the three individuals the Complainant named by their first names are bar tenders. The Complainant was unsure as to what rates of pay are they paid, what is their length of service, experience or qualifications they have.

As the Complainant has not identified an appropriate comparator required to found her claim of unequal pay for ‘like work’ on the grounds of gender and hence establish in the first instance, facts from which discrimination may be inferred, this complaint must therefore fail.

The Complainant failed to establish prima facie case to ground a claim of unequal pay on the grounds of gender and therefore this complaint must fail.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent discriminated against her on the grounds of gender, age and disability due to her pregnancy between 20th March 2017 until 15th November 2017.

The Respondent denies any discriminatory treatment.

·         The Equal Status Acts 2000-2015, prohibit discrimination in the provision of goods and services, the provision of accommodation and access to education on, amongst others, the gender ground, the age ground and the disability ground. The Acts outlaw discrimination in all services that are generally available to the public whether provided by the state or the private sector. These include facilities for refreshment, entertainment, banking, insurance, grants, credit facilities, transport and travel services. Discrimination in the disposal of premises, provision of accommodation, admission to, access to and conditions of participation in educational courses or establishments are also prohibited subject to some exemptions.

The Complainant was unable to clarify the basis for her complaint. She informed that hearing that she marked some of the option on the WRC Complaint Form without clear understanding what do they relate do. At this junction the Adjudication Officer offered the Complainant an adjournment in the event that she would like to seek an advice. The Complainant declined.

I find that the Complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the ground of gender, age and disability.  Accordingly, the complaint fails.

The Complainant submits that she did not receive her entitlement to maternity leave. In her direct evidence the Complainant confirmed that she was in receipt of illness benefit until she commenced her maternity leave. The Complainant confirmed that she had no difficulty with her maternity leave and the relevant forms were filled out by the Respondent without any delay.

The Respondent submits that it only became aware of the Complainant’s pregnancy on 28th November 2017 following receipt of the Health and Safety Benefit Form. The Respondent rejects the claim that the Complainant was denied maternity leave or maternity benefits to which she was entitled to. The Complainant’s expected date of delivery was established to be 25th May 2018 from her doctor’s medical certificate in January 2018. The Complainant was in receipt of illness benefit up until her maternity leave commenced and thereafter she was in receipt of maternity benefit from the DEASP.

The Complainant submitted her claim to the WRC on 22nd January 2018. She confirmed that at the material time she did not make enquiries about maternity leave. It was not disputed that the Complainant was in receipt of illness benefit until she commenced her maternity leave and that she had no difficulties with obtaining her maternity leave entitlements.

Having considered the above I find that the Complainant’s claim is misconceived.

The above complaint is misconceived and therefore it is dismissed.

The Complainant submits that she has not been given time off from work for ante-natal or post-natal care. In her direct evidence the Complainant confirmed that she was off from work due to illness until she commenced her maternity leave. She confirmed that at no stage she requested time off for ante-natal care and she is currently on maternity leave.

The Respondent submits that it could not have provided time off for ante-natal care prior to the Complainant being certified as being unable to return to work on the grounds of illness as the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant’s pregnancy. The Respondent submits that it could not have discriminated against the Complainant in relation to post-natal care as the Complainant is still on maternity leave.

Having considered the Parties’ submissions I find that the Complainant’s claim is misconceived.

The above complaint is misconceived and therefore it is dismissed.

The Complainant submits that she has not been given breastfeeding breaks.

The Respondent submits that it could not have discriminated against the Complainant in relation to breastfeeding breaks as the Complainant is still on maternity leave.

Having considered the Parties’ submissions I find that the Complainant’s claim is misconceived.

The above complaint is misconceived and therefore it is dismissed.

The Complainant submits that she has not been given leave on health and safety grounds from her employment.

The Respondent submits that on 26th November 2017 it received forms in respect of the Health and Safety Leave from the Complainant. The Respondent submits that the Complainant did not turn up for work from 18th November 2017 onwards. The Respondent submits that the form received did not make reference to a high-risk pregnancy or any danger relating to the Complainant’s attendance at work. Rather the form stated that the Complainant is “pregnant and unable to carry out heavy lifting duties”. The Respondent submits that theComplainant informed the Respondent by letter dated 18th December 2017 that she was told by her doctor that she should stay at home until her due date and have plenty of bed rest. The Respondent submits that it appointed a Health and Safety Risk consultant to carry out a risk assessment of the Complainant’s role so the Respondent could take all reasonable steps to ensure that the Complainant is not exposed to any risk. The Respondent engaged the company doctor to carry out an occupational health assessment on the Complainant and the company doctor advised that the Complainant was not able to attend work. The Respondent indicated that they would process forms for illness benefit but were not in a position to process forms for the health and safety benefit in circumstances where the Complainant presented a medical certificate from her own doctor indicating that she was unable to attend work from 18th November 2017 until further notice.

The Complainant argues that she was not given leave on health and safety grounds from her employment. There was no dispute that the Respondent received the relevant form at the end of November 2017. It was not in dispute that the Complainant ultimately remained on sick leave from 18th November 2017 until she commenced her maternity leave. I find that the Respondent communicated to the Complainant that where an employee is certified as unfit for work he/she cannot receive health and safety leave benefit at the same time.

The above complaint is misconceived and therefore it is dismissed.

The Complainant submits that she has not been granted additional maternity leave.

The Respondent denies the claim. The Respondent submits that the Complainant remains on maternity leave.

I find that the Complainant remains on maternity leave. At the hearing she confirmed that she did not apply for additional maternity leave.

The above complaint is misconceived and therefore it is dismissed.

Discrimination- gender-disability-maternity protection- misconceived claims