Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Driver

Security Company

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00005583-001

30/06/2016

The Claimant is claiming discrimination under the Employment Equality Act 1998 – 2008 by not receiving reason accommodation due to a disability.

The Claimant commenced employment with the Respondent in August 2012 until he was forced to resign in January 2016. The Claimant has suffered from significant mental health condition namely; depression, anxiety and work related stress. He drew the Respondents’ attention tom his condition on a number occasions in the course of his employment. In particular in August 2015 when he was certified unfit for work for six weeks. He was prescribed antidepressants by his treating psychiatrist.

He immediately submitted his medical certificate to his supervisor who contacted him and informed him that he was required to attend the company medical officer. The medical officer also certified him unfit for work.

During the same period he suffered from acute back strain after being involved in a traffic accident in October 2015. In December 2015 he was requested by the Respondent to attend their consultant in occupational medicine which he did. The consultant noted that the Claimant felt unsupported and raised concerns relating to his work in what he described as ‘quite pressurised environment’. The consultant advised that he should be fit for work in January 2016 but opined that he should not work alone for at least his first six to eight weeks back if at all possible.

In early January the Respondent’s HR called him to a meeting . The Claimant attended this meeting with a SIPTU member as a witness. He was asked if he had asked his own GP whether he was able to return to work. There was no suggestion made at the meeting if there was a less demanding role for him in the company. In the coin store and warehouse there are numerous employees who have been subject to transit robberies and suffered from stress are accommodated. He was told at this meeting that if the doctor says you are not able for work, there is no need to come and see us again, send a quick email with your resignation and that would be fine.

It was submitted the Claimant’s position was made untenable due to the intolerable   conduct to him by the Respondent. It left him with no option but to resign on the grounds of his disability. The Respondent failed to investigate fully the nature of his condition and they failed to accommodate him in the workplace. It was further submitted that the complaint of discrimination and constructive dismissal is not one in which a relevant comparator could be identified

The Respondent confirmed the Claimant’s employment history and confirmed the meetings that took place with him. A meeting was arranged in early January to discuss facilitating his return to work and what changes could reasonably accommodated to facilitate his return. The meeting was rescheduled at his request and he was accompanied by his SIPTU representative at this meeting. The Claimant was asked if he or his doctor could suggest an alternative role within the Respondent’s organisation which he felt he could redeploy to. A number of potential options were put to him and he was encouraged to take his time to consider these options and to feel free to put forward any suggestions of his own. No pressure was placed on him to return to work unless he was ready. For his part, he expressed a great deal of reluctance to return to work in any capacity and repeatedly insisted that he was still injured from the traffic accident. The meeting ended without agreement for his return to work as the Claimant stated he wished to speak to his GP again.

He attended his GP on 12 January 2016. A report was issued by the GP on 13 January 2026 which stated that the Claimant felt that he was unfit to return to full time work. The report concluded by stating He is considering a change in occupation for the above reasons (copy provided to the Hearing). A copy of the Claimant’s resignation was also submitted which did not raise any complaints about his treatment.

It was submitted that the Respondent has a long history of reasonably accommodation staff who require it, for example in the coin and warehouse areas.

I have considered the submissions of both parties. I note that at all times the Claimant had access to professional advice both from his legal advisers and his trade union concerning his position. Therefore he was well aware of his entitlements but at the crucial meeting of January 2016 he did not at any stage voice his position for reasonable accommodation even though he knew that the Respondent had afforded this to other employees. Also his doctor’s report advised the Respondent that the Claimant was considering a change in occupation not accommodation.

I therefore do not find the claims well founded and they fail.

Reasonable Accommodation