EDA206

The Adjudication Officer held that the complaint was not well-founded.

In line with the normal practice of the Court, the parties are referred to in this Determination as they were at first instance. Hence, Mr McNamee is referred to as the Complainant and Mountrath Amalgamated CEP Company is referred to as the Respondent.

Background

The Complainant was employed with the Respondent as a Community Employment Scheme Supervisor from June 2006. He received a diagnosis of Dyslexia in October 2007, Asperger’s Syndrome and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in 2013 and Depression in 2014. In June 2016 the Respondent sought to engage with the Complainant in respect of a complaint they had received in relation to him. However, the Complainant shortly after the Respondent raised the issue with him went out on sick leave and remained on sick leave until his employment was terminated on the 12^thOctober 2017. It is his complaint that he was discriminated against on the grounds of disability when the Respondent failed to provide him with reasonable accommodation and that he suffered bullying and harassment. The Complainant lodged his claim with the WRC on the 18th February 2017. The cognisable period for the purpose of the Act therefore is 19^thAugust 2016 to the 18^thFebruary 2017.

Complainant’s case

It is the Complainant’s case that during the cognisable period that he made a request for reasonable accommodation in that he be supplied with Dragon Dictate. The cost attached to this request was not significant. However, the Respondent would not provide him with it. While the Respondent did offer to provide him with a Dictaphone that was not what he had requested. The second issue relates to a report he had received in 2007 in respect of his disabilities which he provided to the Respondent their response was to send him for a Psychological assessment.

In relation to his claim of bullying it was his submission that he was expected to attend weekly meetings with his line manager. It was his submission that he found it difficult to comprehend what the manager was asking him to do as he felt that no matter what he did it was wrong.

His harassment claim relates to a meeting on the 1^stSeptember 2016 with his manager when in his view he was given a verbal warning. It also relates to the fact that on the 20^thDecember 2016, he received a letter stating he could be facing redundancy.

Respondent’s case

It is the Respondent’s position that the letter of 20^thDecember 2016 makes no reference to redundancy. Back in September there had been a concern in relation to the funding stream and the Complainant was aware of that and in fact spoke to participants on the scheme about same. In relation to the meeting his Manager tried to give him a letter inviting him to an investigation meeting in relation to a complaint against him, but he declined to take the letter. It is the Respondent’s submission that the Complainant was not issued with a verbal warning at that time or any type of a warning. In relation to the complaint of bullying it is a requirement of the Supervisors role that they met with the Chairman on a weekly basis. A minute is kept of each meeting and a copy of those minutes were sent to the Complainant. The Complainant never raised any issues in relating to the meetings.

In relation to reasonable accommodation the Dictaphone, that the Respondent was proposing to get for the Complainant contained Dragon Dictate but the Complainant never availed of the opportunity to acquire same. In relation to the referral to a Psychologist, the report that the Complainant submitted in 2016 from Dr Deidre Griffin had been completed in 2007. The Respondent felt that the appropriate thing to do was to get an up to date professional assessment of what reasonable accommodation might be required.

Discussion.

In relation to the claim for reasonable accommodation the Complainant was offered Dragon Dictate but not in his preferred format. It was his submission that he did not realise that the Dictaphone, had Dragon Dictate. It is the view of the Court that the Complainant should have explored the possibility of using the Dictaphone, before rejecting it out of hand. The Court determines that as the Respondent did offer to provide a Dictaphone that this element of his claim for reasonable accommodation must fail.

In relation to the alleged failure by the Respondent to implement the 2007 report which he provided to them in 2016 the Court does not accept that the actions of the Respondent in sending him for an up to-date medical assessment was a failure to apply reasonable accommodation and therefore that element of his claim must fail.

In relation to the Complainant’s bullying and harassment complaints the Complainant failed to identify instances of such behaviour with in the cognisable period and therefore those elements of his claims must fail.

Determination

The Court determines that the appeal fails. The decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.

The Court so decided.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Louise O'Donnell
CO'R______________________
16 January 2020Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Clodagh O'Reilly, Court Secretary.