ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00036441
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Stephen Gillan | Iarnród Éireann |
Representatives | Aisling Finnegan BL Eamonn O'Hanrahan E.M. O'Hanrahan Solicitors | Vicky Burke (Industrial Relations)
|
Complaints:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00045717-001 | 18/08/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00047510-001 | 02/12/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00049540-001 | 06/04/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00049540-002 | 06/04/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00051112-002 | 13/06/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/02/2023 and 26/06/2023 and 27/06/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 (as amended) a complaint has been referred to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission who has in turn deemed it appropriate that the Complaint be investigated with any appropriate and/or interested persons to be provided with an opportunity of being heard. In these circumstances and following a referral of this matter, by the said Director General, to the Adjudication services, I can confirm that I am an Adjudicator appointed for this purpose (and/or an Equality Officer so appointed). I confirm I have fulfilled my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint. I have additionally and where appropriate heard the sworn oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and have taken account of the evidence tendered in the course of the hearing as well as any written submissions disclosed in advance of the hearing (and opened up in the course of the hearing).
An Adjudication Officer cannot entertain a complaint presented after the expiration of the period of six months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates, or such other date as may be set out in Section 41(6) of the WRC Act of 2015. In limited circumstances, a complaint presented outside the relevant period may be entertained if the failure to present was due to reasonable cause. No issue has been raised regarding the expiration date as this Complaint herein has been brought within the six months from the date of the alleged occurrence.
Where a person believes they have been discriminated against on one of the nine recognised grounds or in any other way has been treated unlawfully under the Employment Equality Acts they must write to the party that they believe has treated them unlawfully using the EE2 form asking for relevant information to determine their course of action. The proposed Respondent may reply by way of form EE3. No issue has arisen regarding this obligation.
The Complainant herein has referred a matter for adjudication as provided for under Section 77 of the 1998 Act (as amended). In particular the Complainant (as set out in his Workplace Relations Complaint Form dated the 26th of April 2021) seeks redress from the Respondent in circumstances where he claims his Employer behaved unlawfully and discriminated against him in the course of his employment wherein he says that he was treated less favourably than another person has or would have been treated in a comparable situation on the grounds of his disability (as detailed in Section 6 of the 1998 Act (as amended)). The Unlawful behaviour complained of includes failing to give reasonable accommodation for a disability, discrimination, victimisation, and harassment.
The Operative Section is Section 6 of the Employment Equality Act 1998 where: -
Sub Section (1) For the purpose of this Act…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) (referred to as the “discriminatory grounds”) …
Sub Section (2) As between any 2 persons, the discriminatory grounds ...are…
(g) That one is a person with a disability and the other is not or is a person with a different disability (the “disability ground”) …
The nature and extent of the Employer’s obligations, including the employer’s obligation to provide reasonable accommodation for an employee with a disability is governed by section 16 of the Employment Equality Act 1998 (the “1998 Act”)
Section 16(1), (2) and (3) provide 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 (or, as the case may be, continue to undertake) the duties attached to that position or will not accept (or, as the case may be, continue to accept) the conditions under which those duties are, or may be required to be, performed, or
(b) is not (or, as the case may be, is no longer) 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.
(2) In relation to—
(a) the provision by an employment agency of services or guidance to an individual in relation to employment in a position,
(b) the offer to an individual of a course of vocational training or any related facility directed towards employment in a position, and
(c) the admission of an individual to membership of a regulatory body or into a profession, vocation or occupation controlled by a regulatory body,
subsection (1) shall apply, with any necessary modification, as it applies to the recruitment of an individual to a position.
(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 (in this subsection referred to as ‘appropriate measures’ ) 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 measures would impose a disproportionate burden on the employer.
(c) In determining whether the measures would impose such a burden account shall be taken, in particular, of —
- (iv) the financial and other costs entailed,
- (v) the scale and financial resources of the employer’s business, and
- (vi) the possibility of obtaining public funding or other assistance.
(4) In subsection (3)—
‘appropriate measures’, in relation to a person with a disability —
(a) means effective and practical measures, where needed in a particular case, to adapt the employer’ s place of business to the disability concerned,
(b) without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a), includes the adaptation of premises and equipment, patterns of working time, distribution of tasks or the provision of training or integration resources, but
(c) does not include any treatment, facility or thing that the person might ordinarily or reasonably provide for himself or herself.
In addition to the above, the Complainant has said that he has also suffered victimisation in the workplace. Victimisation is defined in Section 74(2)of the Act –
“as adverse treatment of an employee by his or her employer” as a reaction to a complaint of discrimination having been made by the employee to the employer.
The Acts specifically protect a person against dismissal or other adverse treatment by their employer because they have made a complaint to their employer about possible discrimination or taken proceedings under the Equality Legislation or opposed by lawful means an act which is unlawful under these Acts etc. Penalising a person for any of these reasons is defined as victimisation. The Acts provide for complaints about victimisation to be made to the Workplace Relations Commission in the same away as for complaints of discrimination and with the same provision for redress. Per Section 74 of the Act.
The Complainant has also, he says, been harassed in the workplace. Harassment is described in Section 14(A)(7)(i) of the Acts –
“.. any form of unwanted conduct related to any of the discriminatory grounds” which “has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading humiliating or offensive environment for the person.”
In the event that the Complainant is successful, it is open to me to make an award of compensation for the effects of the acts of discrimination and/or of the victimisation etc. I can also give direction on a course of action which might eliminate such an occurrence in the future (per Section 82 of the 1998 Employment Equality Act), which can include re-instatement or re-engagement.
Guidance on quantum in relations to awards of discrimination has been given by the Labour Court in the case of Lee t/a Peking House -v- Fox EED036 :
“Effects which flowed from the discrimination which occurred. This includes not only financial loss suffered by the Complainant arising from the discrimination but also the distress and indignity which she suffered in consequence thereof”.
Section 85(A) of the Employment Equality Acts of 1998 to 2004 sets out the burden of proof which applies to claims of discrimination. In the first instance, the Complainant herself must establish facts which show that he suffered discriminatory treatment. It is only when these facts have been established that the onus shifts to the Respondent to rebut any inference of discrimination that has been raised. The inference must be such that the Complainant has established a Prima Facie case that he has been treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would have been treated in a comparable situation on one of the recognised grounds of discrimination which in this instance is the “disability ground”.
Prima Facie evidence is evidence which in the absence of any contradictory evidence would lead any reasonable person to conclude that a discrimination had occurred.
The Labour Court’s (and the WRC’s) approach to this issue and the test for applying section 85A (burden of proof) is well settled in a line of decisions of both bodies starting with the Labour Court’s Determination in Mitchell v Southern Health Board ([2001] ELR 201):
“..the claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, the primary facts on which they rely in seeking to raise a presumption of unlawful discrimination. It is only where these primary facts are established to the satisfaction of the Court, and they are regarded by the Court as being of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of discrimination, that the onus shifts to the respondent to prove that there is no infringement of the principle of equal treatment.”
Once the Prima Facie case is established, the Respondent must rebut the prima facie case. This will require cogent evidence.
In Nevins, Murphy & Flood v Portroe Stevedores (EDA 051) the Labour Court held in adopting the reasoning of the Employment Appeals Tribunal for Great Britain in Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite:-
“That since the facts necessary to prove a non-discriminatory explanation would usually be in the possession of the respondent, the Court should normally expect cogent evidence to discharge that burden…. mere denials of a discriminatory motive, in the absence of independent corroboration, must be approached with caution”.
The Adjudicator must therefore determine if the explanation provided by the respondent is adequate to discharge the burden of proof that the protected characteristic was not a factor in the treatment complained of by the Complainant.
Background:
This hearing was conducted over the course of three days and in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that the proceedings constitute the administration of Justice. However, as there was an Industrial Relations aspect to this claim it was heard other than in public. In line with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 which came into effecton the 29th of July 2021 and where there is the potential for a serious and direct conflict in the evidence between the parties to a complaint, it was open to me to require that all parties giving oral evidence before me, would swear an Oath or make an affirmation as may be appropriate. I confirm that I have in the circumstances administered the said Oath/Affirmation as appropriate to each of the witnesses in turn. It is noted that the giving of false statements or evidence is an offence. The Complainant has worked with the Respondent company since 2001. Between August 2021 and June 2022, the Complainant caused four separate complaint forms to be issued through the Workplace Relations Commission. Various separate complaints are set out in each complaint form and these adjudication proceedings have endeavoured to work through each separate complaint. Without wanting to be in any way reductive of the facts, the Complainant is seeking to establish that he has been discriminated against on the grounds of both his age and his disability. Arising out of this, the Complainant alleges that he has been penalised, victimised, harassed. The Complainant further asserts a failure to provide reasonable accommodation for a disability. Lastly, and to be dealt with separately the Complainant has outlined an Industrial Relations Dispute. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was fully represented in the course of the hearing. At the outset, the Complainant swore an Oath as to the truth of the evidence he was to give. It is noted that I was provided with a comprehensive submission dated the 3rd of August 2022 which included 112 pages of supporting documentation. A further submission concerning the admissibility of evidence was provided on the 3rd of February 2023. A final submission (described as speaking notes) was prepared and delivered by Counsel for the Complainant as part of the closing argument delivered on the 27th of June 2023. The Complainant has additionally relied on the submissions and narratives outlined in the separate Workplace Relations Complaint Forms. The Evidence adduced by the complainant has been challenged as appropriate by the Respondent’s Representative. The Complainant alleges that he has been discriminated against. Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent entity was represented by a member of its IR Department. The Respondent provided me with a written submission on the 26th of January 2023 together with 11 appendices. A supplementary Submission was received on the 8th of June 2023 and a final submission was prepared for the 27th of June 2023 as the parties were making their final arguments. I note that the Respondent also provided me with a copy of the Respondent Reasonable Accommodation at work manual on the last day of hearing. I have additionally heard from a number of witnesses for the Respondent. These included a member of the administrative staff from the Chief Medical Officer’s Office (Ms. Quinlan), the Chief Medical Officer (Dr. Sullivan), the Line Manager (Mr. Kelly) and an IR Manager (Ms. O’Rourke). All evidence was heard following either an Affirmation or an Oath (as selected). The Respondent witnesses were all cross examined as appropriate by the Complainant representative. The Respondent rejects that there has been a Discrimination, victimisation, Harassment and/or penalisation. The Respondent asserts that any steps taken (and with which the Complainant took issue) were appropriate and reasonable in the context of this workplace. Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have carefully listened to the evidence adduced in the course of three days of hearing. There is something of a pre-history to the events with which I am primarily concerned. In particular the Complainant was sanctioned for a breach of Health and Safety standards when he left a forklift truck unmanned in circumstances that might potentially have caused injury to two co-workers working below the forklift. The incident in question happened in March of 2021 and the sanctions imposed (following a disciplinary process) included a 12-month warning, a suspension and a compulsory forklift refresher training course. This was imposed on the 28th of April 2021 I understand and accept that the Complainant is primarily a painter and does very little work involving forklift operation. However, it is a skillset that he is trained in, and is a skillset which the Employer may be called on to rely on from time to time in accordance with the ever-fluid workplace demands. It was therefore not unreasonable for the Employer to want to ensure that the Complainant was up to date with the safe operation of a forklift. I understand that that Complainant was sent forward for a routine medical examination with the company Chief Medical Officer on the 11th of October 2021. The CMO Dr. B Sullivan very helpfully came into the WRC to give evidence in this matter. She emphasised the safety critical nature and requirements of this Employment situation. This was something which was frequently asserted by all the Respondent witnesses, and I accept that it is appropriate that safety would be at the forefront of a company which operates public transport. I recognise that this is a workplace where Employer liability and Public Liability and are everyday considerations. The Doctor explained that all employees (of which there are thousands) are periodically examined and reviewed to comply with health and safety standards. The CMO appeared to have a good recollection of her dealings with the Complainant and conducted a full examination when he came before her in October of 2021. I note that in her evidence the Doctor stated that the examination included the usual flexion and extension exercises as well as the abduction/adduction exercises all of which are performed so as to allow an assessment of whether a candidate has a normal range of movement. I accept that the doctor had every reason to sign the Complainant off as having achieved level 3 medical standard under the training, competence and fitness code. I accept that this implied that the Complainant was fit to carry out all of his duties. The Complainant was sent for the refresher forklift course on the 29th of November 2021 and in the course of the driving element of that course the Complainant complained of a back issue which meant he could not reverse the truck. The Complainant’s line Manager gave evidence to the effect that he was in a difficult position as he had a CMO medical report from the previous month stating that the complainant was fit to carry out all his duties, and now the Complainant was presenting with a back issue which prevented him from rotating in a seated p[osition. The Manager concluded that the condition made it unsafe for the Complainant to perform his duties. I have to accept that the Manager could not know what had caused this back issue. He could not know or be expected to second guess if it was to be of a short duration or a permanent disability. Most importantly, he could not know what would aggravate the condition. Once he was on notice of an injury or condition of this nature, I think the only reasonable course of action was to immediately stop the injured party from performing any tasks. The Complainant takes issue with the line Manager’s response to the situation which was to send the Complainant home on paid sick leave (subject to obtaining a GP report) pending a further assessment by the CMO to determine the nature and extent of the issues raised in the operation of the forklift truck on the 29th of November 2021. For the avoidance of doubt, I would state that I am satisfied that the Manager acted reasonably in taking this step at this time. It was not for the Manager to assess (in that moment) what tasks the Complainant could or could not perform in the workplace. To suggest that the Line Manager should have, in that instant, discussed the reasonable accommodation which might be given to ensure the Complainant could continue working without doing further damage to an unknown condition is not sensible. The Line Manager referred this issue to the CMO which was the safest option open to him. I accept that he did not want to be held liable for any workplace injuries. The Complainant’s own Doctor certified the Complainant as unfit to work for four weeks to the 31st of December 2021. It is, of course, unfortunate that the country was still wrestling with the issues surrounding the Covid pandemic at the time and obtaining an immediate appointment with the CMO was not possible. I note that the Line Manger wrote to the CMO on the 3rd of December 2021 seeking an appointment as soon as possible. This was chased up a couple of times until an appointment was arranged for the 21st of January 2021. The Complainant therefore was not seen by CMO before the end of the period of absence certified by his own G.P. In the meantime, it seems that the Complainant had talked to his Solicitor about the situation, and I note that on or about the 13th of December 2021 the Complainant caused a complaint form to issue claiming that he had been discriminated against on the grounds of his age and a disability. The complaint form specifies that the Employer has not given a reasonable accommodation for the disability and that he has been harassed. The Complaint form suggests that the Respondent Employer is on notice of the pre-existing condition which prevents the Complainant from twisting his body to look behind him and that he had sciatica which was previously documented through submitted medical certificates. The Complaint form, in short, suggests that the Employer has for some time been well aware of back issues being experienced by the Complainant though the physical examination conducted by the CMO reveals no such issue nor was there any discussion around task limiting conditions. It is noted that the 13th of December complaint form is only sent to the Respondent company on the 13th of January 2022. The Complainant representative has invited me to accept that from in and around this date in January the Respondent was on notice of the fact that the Complainant is looking for a reasonable accommodation for his disability. It also follows that the Complainant now having initiated proceedings must be wary of being victimised, penalised or otherwise treated adversely for having brought this complaint. At the expiration of the certified period of absence provided by his own G.P. the Complainant returned to the workplace at the start of January. He resumed what he perceived to be his normal duties which was scraping and painting. Three weeks later, the Complainant was unable to attend the arranged CMO examination set up for January 21st as he had contracted Covid. At this time the Employee went back out on sick leave, recovering from Covid. A second appointment was set up with the CMO on the 23rd of February. This was conducted by DR. B Sullivan. DR. Sullivan said she was surprised to be meeting the Complainant again so soon after giving him the all clear in the previous October. I understand that Dr. Sullivan had taken some considerable time with this Employee in October 2021 and again in February 2022. The discussions included issues not related to the workplace, albeit a discussion concerning interpersonal issues with one or more colleagues did take place. I note that Dr. Sullivan went so far as to contact the Complainant’s G.P. so as to better understand the Complainant’s medical history. Dr. Sullivan went through the mechanics of the movement which the Complainant said had caused him pain. He simulated the rotation from a seated position. The Doctor also considered the good range of movement the Complainant had as against the pain he said he was experiencing. She was happy that physio and medication would be helpful with a further review in July scheduled. On foot of this examination, the Doctor advised the Complainant’s Employer that the Complainant could resume work with modified duties pending a review scheduled for the next July. The Line Manager received this advice but was unclear what the Doctor intended by modified duties and sought clarification. Again, this was not an unreasonable request. The advice given by the Doctor had been extremely vague. The Line Manager needed more precision in detailing what exact physical functions he could expect this employee could perform until the said July review. This stems from the obvious duty of care owed by the Employer to the Employee. A further Medical Officer Memo dated the 4th of March 2022 issues which (to my mind) doesn’t necessarily assist the Line Manager. This Memo continues to assert that the Complainant is fit only for modified/restricted duties with the definite exclusion being that he no longer drives a forklift. It is not clear to me whether the Line Manager might have sought further clarification at this point, as such a decision was overtaken by concurrent events. As in the meantime, it seems that the complainant has become increasingly upset at the fact that he was still out of the workplace with no certainty around his re-entry. He reasoned that as he had already returned to the workplace in early January there was no good reason to exclude him now. For reasons only he can know, he took matters into his own hands. The evidence adduced by Ms. Quinlan for the Respondent was quite stark. She is a member of the administrative staff in the Chief Medical Officer’s Office. On the 28th of February 2022 and again on the 4th of March 2022 she gave evidence that the Complainant attended the Office wherein she and a number of receptionist staff were working. This building is absolutely separate to the Complainant’s workplace and as a healthcare setting was still operating to strict Covid protocol. Everything was done by appointment. The Complainant said in evidence that he was simply looking for the medical information being released on foot of his medical appointment on the 23rd of February. He does not believe his request was made too forcefully but it appears that Ms Q and one other member of staff were very upset I do not need to go into great detail but it is clear that Ms. Quinlan found the interaction to be worrisome such that she (and her colleague) escalated a complaint to her Line Manager (a Ms. Casey). Ms Casey contacts the Complainant’s Line Manager concerning the alleged inappropriate and threatening behaviour. Not surprisingly, the incident as alleged give rise to the triggering of the Disciplinary machinery – starting with an Investigation. Let me at this juncture note that I understand that this process was triggered by reason of the complaint made by the two individuals working in the CMO Office. These ladies are not directly employed by Irish Rail but do form part of the overall CIE umbrella group. There is a duty of care owing to them in the same way as there is to the Complainant and indeed to all the thousands of Employees herein. I do not think that the Complainant’s Line Manager had any other option open to him. Whilst the Investigation and Disciplinary process may well have been flawed in some of its applications, the fact of it being required is beyond doubt. I do not therefore accept that the initiation of this process gave rise to victimisation or penalisation or harassment in retaliation for having brought the complaints of Discrimination under the Employment Equality Acts. This is important because the Complainant issues another workplace relations complaint form on the 6th of April 2022 claiming specifically that there has been retaliatory steps taken by the Employer to undermine the Complainant’s Discrimination complaints brought the previous December. The retaliatory steps included an investigative process into alleged inappropriate and aggressive behaviour. The Complaint form repeats the Discrimination claim and adds the claim of active penalisation. It should be noted that the Complainant had been placed on suspension pending the outcome of the disciplinary process. As I understand it, the Complainant was put on a 39 hour week pay arrangement which was in fact an increase from the Sickness scheme he had been on since early December. I further note that the Complainant issued a final workplace relations complaint form on the 13th of June 2022 which asserts Discrimination, victimisation and, this time, also harassment. To my mind, the question of whether or not the Complainant was to be given a reasonable accommodation was eclipsed by the incidents in the Chief Medical Officer’s place of work. The Employer herein had taken all the appropriate steps to have this Employee assessed in light of a new and previously unrecorded physical disability. It is not for the Employee himself to assert what this reasonable accommodation should be. It is right and appropriate that, where available, a Medical Doctor who is so extremely well versed with the particular workplace should make that call. There can be no doubt that this is a workplace with many Employees working to specific medical direction and accommodation. That that task should fall to the CMO is beyond doubt. I accept that the Complainant felt that the process was taking too long but I do not ascribe fault to anyone for that. I certainly do not ascribe discriminatory intent behind the delay. The Line Manager sought a review as soon as possible. The first appointment was missed by reason of the Complainant contracting Covid. When eventually the Complainant did meet the CMO (some 13 or 14 weeks after the issue first arose) there were query raised concerning the nature and extent of the modification and restriction of duties(which is, in fact, reasonable accommodation). I do not criticise the Line Manager for seeking specifics, he needed to know what functions this Employee could perform moving forward. The Complainant takes issue with the fact that he was on reduced remuneration, but I would accept that he had to be put out on the sickness scheme. This is a proportionate response to the unexplained difficulty with rotation and back pain. I have no difficulty with accepting the evidence that the Complainant experienced back pain on the 29th of November 2021. In principle this can be described as a disability, but I do not accept that the complainant has been discriminated against on the grounds of this disability. The Line Manager had to fully understand the nature and extent of this injury before he could allow the Complainant return to the workplace. This is a reasonable, appropriate and proportionate response. This would be the appropriate response to any Employee and the fact that the Complainant may or may not have been having HR issues is irrelevant. It goes without saying that the complainant was unable to establish that he was treated less favourably than another would have been. On balance I am not satisfied that the complainant has made a Prima Facie case that he has been discriminated against on the grounds of his disability. On balance I am not satisfied that the Complainant has made a Prima facie case that he has been discriminated against on the grounds of his age. In fact this argument was not pushed particularly strenuously during the course of the hearing as the Complainant was only 56 when the issues arose and this is a workplace with many Employees aged 65 and over – per the evidence of the CMO. |
Decision:
Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.
Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 EqualStatus Act, 2000 CA-00045717-001 – This claim was withdrawn on the 7th of February 2023 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 CA-00047510-001 – There was no Discrimination on the Grounds of Age and/or Disability. The complainant has failed to make a Prima Facie case. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 CA-00049540-001 – There was no Discrimination on the Grounds of Age and/or Disability. The complainant has failed to make a Prima Facie case. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 CA-00049540-002 ( Including Penalisation – 6th April 2022) – There was no Discrimination on the Grounds of Age and/or Disability. The complainant has failed to make a Prima Facie case. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 CA-00051112-002 (13th June 2022 – Age Disability and Victimisation and Harassment) – There was no Discrimination on the Grounds of Age and/or Disability. The complainant has failed to make a Prima Facie case.
|
Dated: 01-08-2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|