DEC-E2018-005

EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS    

DECISION NO. DEC-E2018-005 

PARTIES  

An Employee  

AND  

An Post 

(Represented by Cathal McGreal, BL)                

File reference: et-152735-ee-15                                       

Date of issue: 26 January, 2018                                  

1.  DISPUTE

1.1  This dispute concerns a claim by an individual that she was discriminated against by her employer, on the grounds of disability, by failing to afford her reasonable accommodation in the choice of location at which to conduct a Disciplinary Hearing.  

1.2  The claimant referred her claim to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 22 January 2015. This claim was delegated to me, Ray Flaherty, an Adjudication Officer/Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision. Submissions were received from both sides and, as part of my investigation, I conducted to a hearing on 11 January 2017. 

1.3  This decision is issued by me following the establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission on 1 October 2015, as an Adjudication Officer who was an Equality Officer prior to 1 October 2015, in accordance with section 83 (3) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015. 

2.  BACKGROUND  

2.1  On 9 October 2014 an incident occurred at the Complainant's place of work which resulted in her suspension from work on 13 October 2014, pending the conducting of further enquiries into her conduct while at work. This in turn led to the initiation of the Respondent's Disciplinary Procedures. 

2.2  By way of letter dated 28 November 2014 the Complainant advised the Respondent that she could not attend the proposed oral hearing at the Respondents Regional Office in Galway city. The Complainant stated that because of her agoraphobia, the proposed meeting must be held at the Mail Centre , which is her actual place of work and is located on the outskirts of the city.  

2.3  By way of letter dated 1 December 2014, the Respondent advised the Complainant that the Company does not hold Disciplinary Hearings in Operational Units. It was further advised that such meetings are usually held in the GPO in Dublin. However, the letter went on to state that, on this occasion, the Respondent was willing to move the meeting to Galway where it would be held at the Company's Regional Office. 

2.4  On 8 December 2014, the Respondent's Human Resources Manager sought advice from the Company's Chief Medical Officer in relation to the Complainant's insistence that she could not attend the hearing at the Regional Office due to her agoraphobia. 

2.5  By way of Internal Memorandum, dated 9 December 2014, the Chief Medical Officer stated, inter alia, that based on his records pertaining to and previous assessment of the Complainant and in the knowledge that she had attended an appointment in Dublin while suffering from the same medical condition, in his opinion the Complainant was "fit to attend this venue despite her medical condition". 

2.6  By way of letter dated 14 December 2014, the Complainant advised the Respondent's HR Manager that on her GP's advice she could only leave home to attend her place of work. In addition, the Complainant questioned the Chief Medical Officer's opinion based on the fact that her only consultation with him had taken place six months earlier and her agoraphobia was only briefly discussed during that consultation. 

2.7  Following the receipt of the Complainant's letter of 14 December 2014, the Respondent wrote to the Complainant requesting that her Consultant/Specialist forward a Doctor to Doctor Report to the Chief Medical Officer which should include a full history and prognosis of her medical condition. 

2.8  By way of letter, dated 22 December 2014, to the Respondent's HR Manager, the Complainant stated, inter alia, that: (1) "the Chief Medical Officer already had all the details he is now seeking in a [doctor to doctor] report", (2) "the Chief Medical Officer also had the report of [her] psychiatrist" and (3) her full history was contained in the Medical Form B which accompanied her Personal Injuries Board application, a copy of which had already been provided to the Respondent , however, a further copy was provided on 22 December 2014. 

2.9  On 5 January 2015, the Chief Medical Officer advised the Respondent's HR Manager that having reviewed the contents, with attachments, of the Complainant's letter of 22 December 2014, he remained of the view that she was "fit to engage with Management at the scheduled meeting at the Galway Regional Office". The Chief Medical Officer also wrote to the Complainant and advised that the additional information contained in our correspondence of 22 December 2014 did "not alter the previous view that I provided to HR, that you are fit to meet with them in Galway".

2.10 By way of letter dated 7 January 2015, the Complainant wrote to the Chief Medical Officer and reiterated that she could not attend the Galway Regional Office due to her agoraphobia. The Complainant also stated that, as the Chief Medical Officer had met with her only once and was basing his advice on records/reports held by him, she was now proceeding to submit an access request under Section 4 of the Data Protection Acts 1998-2003. 

2.11 Following on from the Chief Medical Officers correspondence of 5 January 2015, the Respondent's HR Manager wrote to the Complainant on 8 January 2015 advising that the Disciplinary Hearing would proceed on 29 January 2015 in the Company's Regional Office. 

2.12 By way of letter dated 14 January 2015, the Complainant advised the Respondent's HR Manager that she had reported the matter to the Equality Tribunal on the basis that the Respondent had failed to make reasonable accommodation with regards to her agoraphobia.  The Complainant further informed that she would not be attending the Disciplinary Hearing on 29 January 2015 in the Regional Office. However, the Complainant advised that she would be prepared to attend any meeting in the Galway Mail Centre.  

2.13 In a letter dated 20 January 2015, the Respondent's HR Manager advised the Complainant that while the Company had (a) taken the Complainant's situation into account by moving the meeting from Dublin to Galway and (b) had been advised by the Chief Medical Officer that there was no medical reason preventing the Complainant from attending a meeting in the Regional Office, they would, on an exceptional basis, facilitate the Complainant's request for the Disciplinary Hearing to take place at the Mail Centre. 

2.14 The Disciplinary Hearing took place at the Galway Mail Centre on 29 January 2015. 

3.   COMPLAINANT'S SUBMISSION 

3.1  The Complainant submitted that she is a person with a disability. She further submitted that her current complaint relates to her condition of Agoraphobia, which she cited as an exciting disorder involving anxiety and intense fear of any situation where escape may be difficult or where health may not be available. 

3.2  The Complainant submitted that her place of work, where she works night shifts, is located on the outskirts of the city. She further submitted that this location is quiet and has parking adjacent to the premises. The Complainant contends that this is in contrast to the Regional Office, the location in which the Respondent was proposing to hold the Disciplinary Hearing, which is located in the city centre and has no parking facilities. 

3.4  The Complainant submitted that she made numerous requests to the Respondent to have the Disciplinary Hearing conducted at her place of work rather than in the Regional Office, however, her requests were refused. The Complainant submitted that the Respondent's failure to accede to her request in relation to the location of the meeting demonstrated total lack of understanding of her agoraphobia. The Complainant submitted that she never stated she was unwilling to travel to the Regional Office location. However, she stated that her rationale in seeking the request to have the meeting held at her local work location was because she couldn't travel to the city centre venue. The Complainant referred, in her submission, to the Respondent's contention that holding Disciplinary Hearings at neutral venues was for the benefit of the employee concerned. The Complainant submitted that in this case the Respondent is obviously referring to employees without a disability, like agoraphobia. The Complainant further submitted that, as a person with agoraphobia, the policy of neutral location for such meetings was not her preference and did not benefit her in any way. It was further submitted that the standard application of such policy to all employees, regardless of whether they had a disability or not, could in itself amount to discrimination. In her submissions, the Complainant challenged the opinion of the Respondent's Chief Medical Officer that there was no medical reason preventing the Complainant from attending a meeting in the Regional Office. The Complainant further submitted that she only met the Chief Medical Officer once (in May 2014) and that her agoraphobia was only briefly discussed at that meeting. The Complainant submitted that the Chief Medical Officer appears to have no insight or understanding as to the effects of agoraphobia on sufferers. The Complainant further submitted that the Chief Medical officer did not take the views of her own GP into consideration when providing his opinion. Finally, the Complainant pointed to the fact that the Respondent agreed to hold the meeting at the Complainant's preferred location once she informed them that she was submitting a complaint to the Equality Tribunal. 

4.   RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSION 

4.1  In response to the claims made by the Complainant, the Respondent raised a number of preliminary issues as follows:  

Preliminary Points:

1) The Complainant's Disability  

4.2  The Respondent claims that it is difficult to discern what precisely is the specific illness or disability forming the basis of the Complainant's complaint. The Respondent stated that there is no question but that the Complainant has medical difficulties, however, they state that it is not so clear as to the precise condition the Complainant claims was not accommodated and in respect of which the complaint has been made.

4.3  The Respondent stated that, despite several references to agoraphobia in her various exchanges and despite having been given many opportunities to do so, the Complainant has failed to furnish the Respondent with full confirmation of this condition. In particular, the Respondent pointed to the report of the Complainant's own doctor, sought by the Respondent in May 2013, which it is claimed does not mention agoraphobia and does not make any mention whatsoever of any reasonable accommodation that might be required. 

In addition, in this regard the Respondent states that while the Form B pertaining to the Injuries Board Application mentions agoraphobia, as an injury sustained at work, any such document would be contentious. The Respondent also pointed out that the Consultant Psychiatrist, who was commissioned by the Chief Medical Officer to examine the Complainant in mid-2014, does not necessarily agree with the diagnosis. 

4.4  In summary, on this preliminary point, the Respondent states that, in such circumstances, the Complainant is placed on proof of the precise condition she claims was not reasonably accommodated and whether it is a disability under the Act.  

2) The Accommodation Complaint is moot:  

4.5  The Respondent submitted that the Complainant insisted, contrary to the Companies medical advice, that she had a medical condition that required that an investigative oral hearing, concerning her alleged misconduct, had to be held in her place of work and not at a more neutral work location as per Company policy.  

4.6  The Respondent further submitted, in this regard, that the Complainant's request for the preferred location was granted on 20 January 2015. Therefore, the Respondent submitted that, as the hearing did take place at the Complainant's preferred location, her complaint in this regard is moot.  

4.7  The Respondent submitted that all of the contribution insisting that the meeting must not be held at the Regional Office because of her agoraphobia comes from the Complainant yourself and not from her doctor. In this regard, the Respondent further stated that the Complainant did not provide any report or doctors letter or any medical opinion which addressed the issue of the location of the hearing. 

4.8  With regard to the Complainant's submission of Form B of her Injuries Board application, the Respondent submitted that the report in question is based on an examination which took place on 10 April 2013, with the report being completed on 20 June 2014. 

4.9  The Respondent submitted that, while both her solicitor and Trade Union (at the highest level) were very much involved at the time, a High Court action having been launched in November 2014, all of the correspondence in relation to the location of the meeting came directly from the Complainant. 

4.10 The Respondent submitted that the Complainant was accommodated with regard to her Disciplinary Hearing. The Respondent stated that all hearings, of the nature the Complainant was being invited to, are normally held in Dublin. However, in this case, the Respondent accommodated the Complainant by arranging for the personnel involved in the hearing to travel to Galway for the meeting. 

4.11 The Respondent submitted that, as of 20 January 2015, the issue of where the Complainant was to have Disciplinary Hearing was resolved. The Respondent submitted that the location of the hearing was changed to avoid further correspondence on the issue. 

4.12 The Respondent submitted that the Complainant's claim to the Equality Tribunal, which was received on 22 January 2015, was sent the day after the issue had actually been resolved by the Respondent's letter of 20 January 2015. The Respondent further submitted that their letter of 20 January 2015, which was sent by registered post, was "not called for" by or on behalf of the Complainant. The Respondent stated that the Complainant knew in advance of the disciplinary meeting of 29 January 2015 that she was going to be accommodated with her location of choice.  

4.13 Finally, on this preliminary point the Respondent submitted that the Complainant's failure to collect the letter of 20 January 2015, which the Respondent claims dealt fully with the her perceived difficulty, indicates that she wanted to take this claim and added to the others she had already issued. The Respondent submitted that this is contrary to every principle of employment protection and commonsense: that local informal means of dealing with issues is preferable to litigation. 

3) Time Limits:  

4.14 Respondent submitted that the Complainant's complaint was lodged on 22 January 2015. Consequently, the Respondent submitted that the timeframe of relevant and admissible facts which discrimination can be inferred is from 23 July 2014. It is further submitted that, given that this is a claim of failure to reasonably accommodate the Complainant's request that her Disciplinary Hearing be held in a specific work location rather than utilise the normal Company disciplinary procedure, the relevant period is, therefore, a very narrow one from late 2014 to 20 January 2015. 

4.15 Having concluded submissions on the preliminary points and without prejudice to the content of those submissions, the Respondent moved to address the substantive elements of the complaint as follows:

Substantive Points:

1) The Respondent had good reason to hold his meeting in an alternative location: 

4.16 The Respondent submitted that the complaint appears to be a claim of failure to reasonably accommodate the Complainant's request for a Disciplinary Hearing to be held in a specific work location rather than utilise the normal Company policy to respect the privacy and sensitivity involved Disciplinary Hearings and to hold them at a neutral location away from the site of the issue under examination. 

4.17 The Respondent submitted that, while it is true that there are different shifts in the Mail Centre, it noted that the Complainant issued a letter, relating to her second claim, in which she stated that she could not go back to work in the very mail centre where she insisted she should have her Disciplinary Hearing. 

2) The Respondent satisfied its duties pursuant to Section 16 (3) of the Employment Equality Acts: 

4.18 The Respondent submitted that it has been sensitive and accommodating to the Complainant's medical needs from a very early stage. The Respondent states that it sought and paid for a report from the Complainant own doctor, in May 2013, inviting recommendations and reasonable accommodation.

4.19 The Respondent submitted that the said report contained no recommendations in relation to reasonable accommodation. The Respondent submitted that the matter was referred in a timely fashion to the Chief Medical Officer, as the Respondent sought to understand the difficulties presented by any disability the Complainant might have and considered what was reasonably required to accommodated it. 

4.20 The Respondent submitted that a conversation took place between the Chief Medical Officer and the Complainant's GP on 4 November 2013, during which no concerns were reported by the Complainant's GP.  

4.21 The Respondent further submitted that as late as 19 September 2014, the Consultant Psychiatrist, who had been engaged by the Respondent to review the Complainant's situation, saw no serious concerns regarding a return to work for the Complainant from a medical perspective.

4.22 With regard to the timeline of correspondence with the Complainant on the issue of the hearing location, the Respondent submitted that it demonstrates they made reasonable efforts to understand the Complainant's health concerns, to consider whether and to what extent they needed to be accommodated. 

4.23 Finally, in this regard, the Respondent submitted that ultimately and crucially, the Chief Medical Officer, having considered the matter, did not determine that there was a requirement to accommodate any condition of agoraphobia in any particular way. The Respondent further submitted that it acted in accordance with this advice in relation to the matter of the hearing location. 

3) The Complainant was unwilling, not incapable of attending the hearing in the Respondent's Regional Office: 

4.24 The Respondent submitted that while the location of the Disciplinary Hearing was ultimately conceded, the circumstances of the Complainant's request suggest very strongly that she was unwilling rather than unable to attend as initially requested at an alternative location. In support of this contention, the Respondent drew attention to the following: (1) the possible diagnosis of the Consultant Psychiatrist with regard to agoraphobia arose on foot of a visit by the Complainant to his rooms in Dublin, which clearly was a far greater reach for the Complainant than any meeting in Galway, (2) the Complainant's recent attendance at a WRC hearing, for which she indicated that no special facilities will be required for her attendance, other than to be accompanied by her husband and (3) in her correspondence of 18 August 2014 to the Chief Medical Officer, the Complainant stated specifically that she did not need "any accommodation" from her employer. With regard to the latter point, the Respondent stated that as the comment was made specifically in the context of her health, there can be no doubt that the Complainant understood what this meant. 

4.25 The Respondent further submitted that the Complainant was required to attend a Disciplinary Hearing in relation to an allegation of misconduct. It is further submitted that the Complainant repeatedly stated that she could not attend where and when the Respondent required to do so. The Respondent stated that this is a case of unwillingness rather than being incapable pursuant to Section 16 (1) of the Act. 

4) The Complainant was not seeking accommodation to undertake any "duty" pursuant to Section 16 (3) of the Employment Equality Acts: 

4.26 The Respondent submitted that Section 16 of the Act, on which the Complainant relies in her complaint, does not apply to the circumstance of this case. The Respondent submitted that the Complainant was not being asked to undertake or be capable of undertaking her duties. The Complainant was being asked to attend for the purposes of the disciplinary process. 

4.27 The Respondent submitted that "duties" referred to work rather than any obligation under the contract. It is further submitted by the Respondent that the Complainant was specifically not working or attending for work at the relevant time, as she was on suspension. 

FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS:

(A) Preliminary Issues:

Time Limits: 

5.1 Having carefully considered all of the evidence adduced and representations made in relation to this element of the Complainant's complaint, I find no issue in relation to time limits and deem the complaint to be properly before me for consideration.  

Consequently, I am satisfied that I have jurisdiction to hear the complaint before me and to issue a decision in that regard. 

The Complainant's Disability

5.2 The second preliminary issue for consideration relates to the Complainant's disability. In their submission the Respondent contended that the burden of proof rests with the Complainant to establish the precise condition which requires reasonable accommodation and whether or not that condition is a disability under the Act. 

5.3 The basis of the Complainant's complaint is that she was unable to attend the Disciplinary Hearing in the Respondent's Regional Office because she suffered from agoraphobia. The reasonable accommodation sought by the Complainant was to have the Disciplinary Hearing relocated to her work location in the Mail Centre on the outskirts of the city. 

5.4  Having carefully considered the evidence adduced, I find there to be two references to the condition of agoraphobia. In a report dated 18 August 2014 from the Consultant Psychiatrist, who examined the Complainant at the request of the Respondent's Chief Medical Officer, it states that "she subsequently developed significant anxiety and avoidance behaviours which impacted on her social and occupational functioning and could be construed as a Secondary Phobic Anxiety disorder with both social anxiety and agoraphobic features."  

5.5  The second reference to agoraphobia is contained in a Medical Assessment Form (Form B), which was completed on 20 June 2014 by the Complainant's GP as part of a Personal Injuries application. This reference refers to the Complainant who "became anxious, agoraphobic and unable to maintain eye contact." 

5.6 Under Section 2 (1) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998, disability is defined, inter alia, as "a condition, illness or disease which affects a person thought processes, perception of reality, emotions or judgement or which results in disturbed behaviour". Based on this definition, I am satisfied that agoraphobia can reasonably be considered to qualify as a disability under the Acts. (B) Substantative Complaint:Having carefully considered all the evidence presented to me in relation to this complaint, I now set out below my findings and conclusions in relation to the substantive element of the Complainant's complaint: Section 16 (3) of the Employment Equality Act states as follows:"(a) for the purposes of this Act, a person who has a disability shall not be regarded as other than fully competent to undertake, and fully capable of undertaking, any duties if, with the assistance of special treatment or facilities, such person would be fully competent to undertake, and be fully capable of undertaking, those duties. (b) an employer shall do all that is reasonable to accommodate the needs of a person who has a disability by providing special treatment or facilities to which (a) relates."  Section (a) as referred to in the above extract from the Acts refers to the undertaking of "duties". In their submissions, the Respondent contended that the circumstances in this case, i.e. the holding of a meeting does not constitute a "duty" and, therefore, Section 16 (3) of the acts do not apply here. It is clear Section 16 (3) of the Acts places an onus on employers to take reasonable steps to accommodate an employee who has a disability. While it is also clear from the above section that the requirement relates to the undertaking of "duties", it would be reasonable to conclude that such onus would also extend to a work related activity, such as attending a meeting, particularly of a once off variety such as a Disciplinary Hearing. The Disciplinary Hearing, which the Complainant had been invited to attend, had arisen in the course of her work. Clearly, in that context, the required attendance at a meeting can be seen to equate with any duty or task relating to her work.  Consequently, I am satisfied that the Complainant's attendance at a Disciplinary Hearing constitutes a "duty" of her employment and, therefore, I find that Section 16 (3) of the Acts does apply in this case. Having found that Section 16 (3) (b) of the Employment Equality Acts applied in this case, I then proceeded to consider whether or not the Respondent satisfied its responsibilities as set out therein. From the evidence adduced, it is clear that the Respondent's standard procedure in relation to the conducting of Disciplinary Hearings is to have all such meetings take place at their Headquarters in Dublin. Following a request from the Complainant, the Respondent confirmed, by way of letter dated 1 December 2014, that they were willing to depart from their normal procedure and scheduled the Disciplinary Hearing to take place in Galway. I am satisfied that by so doing the Respondent provided significant accommodation to the Complainant in light of her disability.  The issue at the core of the Complainant's complaint arose when she sought further accommodation by requesting that the Hearing take place in her actual work location as opposed to the Regional Office Galway, as originally nominated by the Respondent.      In the light of this request for further accommodation, the Respondent consulted with the Chief Medical Officer, who on 5 January 2015, issued an opinion that the Complainant was "fit to engage with Management at the scheduled meeting at the Galway Regional Office". Based on this opinion the Respondent proceeded on the basis that the Hearing will take place in the Regional Office. By way of a letter dated 14 January 2015, the Complainant advised the Respondent that she had reported them to the Equality Tribunal for failing to make a reasonable accommodation in relation to her disability. By way of response issued on 20 January 2015, the Respondent set out the reasons why they considered it was not unreasonable to expect her to meet with their representatives in the Regional Office. However, notwithstanding this view, the Respondent indicated that if the Complainant was only willing to meet at her work location this request will be facilitated in order to expedite the disciplinary proceedings. As a result, the Disciplinary Hearing took place at the Complainant's place of work on 29 January 2015.  Having carefully considered all the evidence adduced in relation to this complaint, I am satisfied that the Respondent's standard practice in relation to the conducting of Disciplinary Hearings, is that they are held in the Headquarters in Dublin. The rationale for this is based on confidentiality and sensitivity concerns.  Notwithstanding this standard practice, when the Complainant advised the Respondent that she would not travel to Dublin, the Respondent immediately rescheduled the Complainant's Disciplinary Hearing to its Regional Office, based in Galway city. Consequently, I am fully satisfied that the reason for this deviation from the standard practice was to accommodate the Complainant. I am further satisfied that the proposed venue for the meeting was not an unreasonable choice. The proposed venue is approximately one mile from the Complainant's place of work. While I accept that the proposed venue did not have adjacent car parking, I note from the evidence presented that the Complainant did attend a number of off-site meetings in relation to work-related matters, including a visit to the Consultant Psychiatrist in Dublin . Based on the above, I am satisfied that it was a wholly reasonable accommodation, from the Respondent's perspective, to have moved the hearing venue from the standard Dublin location to a venue within one mile of the Complainant's place of work. I am further satisfied that, in providing this accommodation, the Respondent could, at that point, be reasonably considered to have fulfilled any obligation arising from Section 16 (3) (b) of the Acts. However, the Complainant sought further accommodation by requesting that the Disciplinary Hearing take place in her work location, as opposed to the Regional Office. As the initial reluctance of the Respondent to accede to this additional request appears to have been the motivation for the Complainant's submission of her complaint, I believe it is necessary to consider this further request in the overall context of the complaint, notwithstanding the findings set out at 5.16 above. Having carefully considered all the evidence adduced, both in documentary and oral form, it is clear that, having already accommodated the Complainant by moving the meeting from Dublin to Galway, the Respondent did not consider it appropriate, in the context of the disciplinary process, to conduct the Hearing in the Complainant's place of work. As already stated, the rationale for the Respondent conducting all Disciplinary Hearings in Dublin was to ensure confidentiality and sensitivity.  Consequently, it is completely understandable that the Respondent would be reluctant to schedule the Disciplinary Hearing in the actual building where the Complainant worked. The Respondent's position in this regard must also be considered in the context of already having provided significant accommodation to the Complainant by scheduling the meeting for the Regional Office, which was just one mile away in Galway city. It is further clear from the evidence presented, that the Respondent's original decision to accommodate the Complainant, by moving the meeting to Galway, was based solely on the latter's personal contention that she could not travel to Dublin because of her agoraphobia. However, it is clear that, when presented with the additional request to move the meeting to the Complainant's workplace, the Respondent, not unreasonably, took further steps to ascertain the basis/reasonableness of the accommodation now being sought. I am satisfied that this was a perfectly reasonable position for the Respondent to take, particularly in the context as set out at paragraph 5.21 above. Having carefully considered all the evidence adduced, I am satisfied that, at the point when the Complainant initially requested the meeting to be moved from the Regional Office in Galway city to her place of work, the Respondent was not provided with any supporting evidence or professional diagnosis which would ground the requirement for such an additional accommodation. In the absence of such information, the Respondent sought medical opinion and direction with regard to the requirement for such accommodation. The Chief Medical Officer, supported by the evidence from the Consultant Psychiatrist, who had assessed the Complainant just three months earlier, informed the Respondent that she was fit to attend the meeting at the proposed Regional Office venue. When the Complainant contested the Chief Medical Officer's opinion, he reassessed the situation in the light of the Complainant's submission of a Personal Injuries Report (Form B), which had been completed some six months earlier by the Complainant's GP. Having conducted this reassessment, the Chief Medical Officer reaffirmed his earlier opinion and informed the Respondent that he remained of the view that the Complainant was fit to engage with Management at the scheduled meeting in the Regional Office. Further, in the oral Hearing, the Chief Medical Officer asserted that the Complainant never had a psychological assessment for agoraphobia. He also referred to the fact that in earlier correspondence, the Complainant's GP did not feel the Complainant required referral to a specialist or required particular accommodation in that regard. In that context and against the background, as set out above, I find that it was reasonable for the Respondent to reassert its desire to hold the meeting in the Regional Office and to advise the Complainant accordingly. Despite their strongly held view that it was procedurally inappropriate to hold the Disciplinary Hearing in an individual employees place of work and despite the fact that they had professional, medical opinion confirming that the requested accommodation was not warranted in this case, the Respondent relented and conducted the Disciplinary Hearing at the Complainant's place of work. Having carefully considered all of the above, I find that the Respondent acted in a reasonable manner by initially agreeing to move the meeting from Dublin to Galway and subsequently moving it from the Regional Office in Galway to the Complainant's place of work. I further find that, in a context where the Complainant had failed to provide relevant, current medical evidence supporting her request for accommodation and where the Respondent was in receipt of medical opinion suggesting that the accommodation was unnecessary, the Respondent provided additional reasonable accommodation by dispensing with their standard procedures in relation to location for Disciplinary Hearings and holding the meeting in the Complainant's place of work 5. DECISION I have investigated the above complaint and make the following decision in accordance with Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts. I find that the Respondent fulfilled their obligations under Section 16 (3) of the Employment Equality Acts by initially relocating the Disciplinary Hearing from Dublin to Galway. I further find that, despite having received medical opinion to the effect that the request for additional accommodation was not supported by medical evidence, the Respondent afforded the extra accommodation and conducted the Disciplinary Hearing at the Complainant's place of work. Based on the above, I conclude that the Respondent provided the Complainant with more than adequate reasonable accommodation in the circumstances.  Consequently, the Complainant's complaint in this regard is not upheld.

____________________

Ray Flaherty,

Adjudication Officer

26th January, 2018