Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Sales Assistant

A supermarket

Representatives

Mandate Trade  union

Ibec

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-00054437-001

10/01/2023

The complainant worked for the respondent supermarket.  Due to a serious allergy the complainant had to avoid contact with any fish product or traces of such.  She claimed that the respondent owed her a duty of reasonable accommodation in respect of this disability and that this should have extended to positioning her in a role other than that on the shop floor.  The respondent subsequently terminated the complainant’s employment on the grounds of ill health as she was unable to return to work on the shop floor.

Evidence at the hearing was given under oath/affirmation by the complainant and her Shop Steward.  Evidence was given under oath/affirmation for the respondent by Mr B, Store Manager and Ms A, Store Manager.  Cross examination of witnesses took place.

Submissions were received from both parties which were considered by me.

The complainant does not wish to have her disability made known publicly and I have therefore, decided that the parties should be anonymised in this decision.

The Complainant was employed from the 15th January 2005 to the 14th July 2022 as a Sales Assistant at the Respondent’s store. The Complainant has been absent from her employment since May 2019. She was dismissed by the Respondent on the grounds of ill-health.

The Complainant suffered a skin rash as a reaction to exposure to fish fluid/juice in 2009. This reaction was so severe the Complainant’s GP prescribed oral steroids and provided her with a medical note stating that she was allergic to fish and stating that she should not be in contact with any such products.

Over the years, the allergic reaction became progressively worse in the event of contact with fish. On the 13th May 2019, the Complainant’s GP wrote to the Respondent to state: “Again I am advising that every precaution should be taken to stop (name)  being exposed to seafood as allergic reactions such as this can potentially cause a fatal anaphylactic reaction”.

The complainant submitted a grievance in relation to the matter and the initial finding was; During the course of my investigation there has been a consistent insufficiency of evidence to support your claim as to your condition being well known amongst your colleagues and management.

The complainant appealed and the finding was; Based on my investigation, I find that the Company did take action when the doctor’s note was received on direction from you in relation to what areas of the store you could and could not work in.

On the 6th September 2021, Mandate Trade Union (the Union) wrote to the Respondent and stated:

Despite numerous welfare meetings regards her health and, not least, how her workplace/contract might be reasonably adjusted as a means of returning her to work, we are yet to receive the company’s final position on this.

Mandate has consistently argued on her behalf that the company has the means, if not the will, to consider a reasonable adjustment on the same by way of providing her an administrative role/function in the store. It appears that this hasn't even received due comprehensive attention by the store management.

The company’s position appears to be intent on ensuring that she will work on the shop floor, the last suggestion was within the clothing department. Mandate believes that this is a supernumerary position and as such have argued that the same could be applied to the administrative departments of the store.

A second report from the Respondent’s medical experts dated 1st February 2022 stated;

Diagnoses - active/passive] (a) Anxiety and Depression which she attributes to her work. (b) Allergy to fish, she is deeply fearful of exposure to fish or fish products should she return to her workplace.

…Likelihood of further sickness and absence. Her anxiety /depression appears stable but is unlikely to improve in the short term due to her ongoing work issues.

… The Disability Act (DA) 2005 defines disability as 'substantial restriction in the capacity of the person to carry on a profession, business, or occupation in the State or to participate in social or cultural life in the State by reason of an enduring physical, sensory, mental health or intellectual impairment' This is quite a broad definition. As (complainant) has a significant mental health issue, it is my opinion that she falls within this definition.

…Management at local level state that they are unable to facilitate a change of work role that would eliminate risk (change to office-work off the shop floor for instance). This decision should be interrogated.

The Union wrote to the Respondent in a letter dated the 14th April 2022, drawing attention to the conclusions of the Respondent’s own selected medical expert. A meeting was held the 25th April 2022 between the parties. The Complainant’s position at this meeting continued to be that she would be able to return to work if she could swap with an admin worker, so she would be away from fish as much as possible. Both the Complainant and the admin worker have role flexibility contained in their Sales Assistants contracts. Furthermore, the Complainant worked in the office during her employment. However, the position of the Respondent at this meeting included “In response to admin role fully flexible colleague in a role that is specific, I don’t think it’s right to displace the colleague so no vacancy”

The outcome of this meeting was the letter of dismissal. This dismissal was appealed on the 24th May 2022. An appeal hearing was held on the 7th June 2022. The Complainant and her union official again suggested a swap with the admin position and this swap would have the support by the medical experts on both sides. Additionally, it was outlined why a move to clothing was not appropriate. A follow up appeal hearing was held on the 4th July 2022 and again the Complainant and her union official argued for the admin swap as opposed to a transfer to clothing. An appeal outcome letter dated the 15th July 2022 stating:

I find that the creation of a role in the area where you determined was suitable to you, where a role does not exist is not reasonable and would give rise to a disproportionate cost to the Company and therefore there is no grounds to provide such special treatment.

The final page of the letter similarly states:

it would be a disproportionate measure to create a role where one does not exist

The Complainant is challenging the wording “the creation of a role” and “create a role”, as the Complainant on medical advice was seeking a swap of an existing role, not seeking the Respondent to create a new role.

The Employment Equality Acts 1998 as amended (“the Acts”) provides:

‘‘disability’’ means—

(a) the total or partial absence of a person’s bodily or mental functions, including the absence of a part of a person’s body,

(b) the presence in the body of organisms causing, or likely to cause, chronic disease or illness,

(c) the malfunction, malformation or disfigurement of a part of a person’s body,

(d) a condition or malfunction which results in a person learning differently from a person without the condition or malfunction, or

(e) a condition, illness or disease which affects a person’s thought processes, perception of reality, emotions or judgement or which results in disturbed behaviour, and shall be taken to include a disability which exists at present, or which previously existed but no longer exists, or which may exist in the future or which is imputed to a person

It is contended that the medical reports of the complainant’s various medial issues and residual complications come within the meaning of this definition.

It is contended that the Acts explicitly identify the mandatory primary duty of the Respondent to provide the Complainant who has a disability, with reasonable accommodation, referred to in the Acts as “appropriate measures”. The purpose of providing reasonable accommodation is 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

The Acts go on to state: In determining whether the measures would impose such a burden account shall be taken, in particular, of—

(i) the financial and other costs entailed,

(ii) the scale and financial resources of the employer’s business, and

(iii) the possibility of obtaining public funding or other assistance.’’,

The Act continues:

‘‘‘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 the case of A Government Department and An Employee ADE 05/16 it was confirmed the duty to make adjustments is “proactive” in nature and that “the scope of employer’s duty is determined by what is necessary and reasonable in the circumstances. In the case A Worker v An Employer [2005] ELR 159, the Labour Court held that: The duty to provide special treatment may also involve relieving a disabled employee of the requirement to undertake certain tasks which others doing similar work are expected to perform. The scope of the duty is determined by what is reasonable, which includes consideration of the costs involved. This is an objective test which must have regard to all the circumstances of the particular case.

It is submitted that the “distribution of tasks or the provision of training or integration resources” would have facilitated the Complainant’s requested role swap and any retraining (if required) would not impose a disproportionate burden on the Respondent.

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent on 15th January 2005 and worked as a Customer Assistant in the respondent’s store.  Following an alleged incident in the store on 1st May 2019 the complainant alleged that she was in contact with fish while carrying out her duties.  She states that she is allergic to fish if it contacts her skin.  The complainant commenced a period of sick leave and did not return to work.  Attempts by the company to engage with her to make adjustments and reasonable accommodations were made by the company.  These attempts met with resistance and delays by the complainant.

The respondent received a communication from the complainant’s GP on 13 May 2019 confirming that she does get an allergic reaction when in contact with seafood and that every precaution should be taken to stop her being exposed to seafood.

On 14th May 2019 the Respondent acknowledged the complainant’s medical cert for absence due to work related stress and arranged a meeting for 21st May.  The complainant did not meet the respondent until October, some 5 months later.  By letter dated 20th May 2019 the complainant’s union official said she would be attending the proposed meeting and lodged a grievance.  The respondent also received a letter from the complainant’s solicitor dated 19th June 2019 alleging a workplace related injury and seeking admission of liability by the respondent.  A number of attempts were made by the respondent to hold the meeting to discuss the grievance and finally this took place on 28th November.  In the interim, on 10th October 2019 a welfare meeting took place. This meeting was conducted by Mr B, Store Manager and focussed on the complainant’s allergy.  The meeting concluded with Mr B saying that he would identify what the company could do to try and resolve the complainant’s concerns and try and agree a package on which she could come back to work. The respondent wrote to the complainant on 6th November to organise an Occupational Health (OH) appointment in order to put a support plan in place.

The meeting to discuss the grievance took place on 28th November 2019 and concluded by Mr B stating that he would investigate the issues.  A number of attempts were made by the respondent to organise a referral to OH without success.  On 9th March 2020 the respondent wrote to the complainant seeking a comprehensive medical report from her doctor with some detail to support the best position for her within the store taking into account the concerns surrounding her ongoing condition.  The respondent stated that on receipt of this report they would arrange a welfare meeting to discuss supports to facilitate her return to work. No such report was received.

A further meeting on the investigation into the complainant’s grievance took place on 7th May 2020 and further follow up meetings also took place.  Attempts were made to have a conference call meeting to discuss the outcome of the investigations.  This could not take place in person due to Covid.  The complainant did not attend.  The outcome of the grievance was sent by letter to the complainant on 27th August 2020 and included the following;

That a meeting take place with the Store Manager on her return to work, to provide full details of her condition to allow a full understanding of the supports she required including any potential training for colleagues and; that this would be documented and used in building a supportive plan to ensure a safe working environment.  The complainant appealed the outcome.  The appeal took place on 8th October 2020.  The outcome was communicated to the complainant by letter dated 31st October 2020 with a similar recommendation to the original hearing.

A welfare meeting took place on 29th September to discuss the complainant’s return to work. A number of unsuccessful attempts were made by the respondent to organise a follow-up meeting culminating in a letter from the respondent to the complainant issued on 29th December 2020 arranging a meeting for 8th January 2021 and advising her that she was required to engage in this and the consequences of failure to do so.

The complainant attended OH on 5th March 2021.  The report provided as follows;

No, she is currently unfit.  Whilst awaiting Immunology investigation it must be assumed that fish allergen is a hazard.  (the complainant) must not be exposed even to traces of allergen.  It would be near impossible to eliminate this hazard from the shop floor, (even in areas remote from the fish counter).  I note your comments on working in hardware or similar.  (the complainant) states that clients frequently leave unwanted items that they have put in their trolleys in remote areas, and she feels no area in the store is completely without risk.  This would include the unlikely scenario of handling money contaminated with fish allergen. She would feel unsafe in this environment which would add to her anxiety.  In the absence of consultant Immunology opinion it must be assumed that (the complainant) is a risk of Anaphylaxis.

The respondent set up a further welfare meeting with the complainant to discuss the possibility of whether she would be returning to work in the foreseeable future and whether there was merit in holding her position open given that she had been absent for more than two years.  The meeting took place on 5th July 2021 and the complainant was asked to provide an updated report from her own GP.  The complainant’s union official responded by letter dated 9th August 2021 asking the respondent to make a decision on the complainant’s employment based on information already provided by OH.  A meeting took place on 19th August 2021 at which the OH recommendations were again discussed.  The complainant asked that an admin role be considered and Mr B confirmed that there were no roles available in admin and that he had reviewed the non-food options but that the complainant herself had raised concerns about those areas due to customers leaving food items down in those areas.  He stated that the clothing department would be less of a risk as there were no shelves which would eliminate cross-contamination.  The complainant took major issue with this as it was still a position on the shop floor.

Further attempts at communication were made by the respondent including another referral to OH.

By letter dated 5th Nov 2021 the respondent wrote confirming that the complainant had failed to attend her scheduled OH appointment and that the respondent was happy discuss any further options with her in the case that her doctor had set out any additional measures to be considered.  The respondent set up a meeting for 22nd November stating;

I must make you aware that we do need to proceed with this review and make a decision in respect to your employment….and whether or not you will be fully fit to resume working in the near future or that you are unable to fulfil your contract of employment on grounds of ill health.  In this regard, please provide me, in advance of the meeting, your own doctor’s medical opinion in relation to your fitness to return to work and what measures he/she believes can facilitate a safer return to work for you in the foreseeable future for my consideration.

The complainant attended OH on 25th Jan 2022.  The report stated;

(the complainant) was absent from work since May 2019

Her GP is certifying her as unfit and there is no end date at present.

She is aware of the measures proposed by management to minimise the risk of fish exposure.  This does not eliminate her fears.

Thoughts of having to return to work and her perceived fear of inadvertent exposure to fish or fish products causes her acute anxiety

She has a fear of going to work and accidentally being exposed to fish products and suffering a severe, even fatal allergic reaction.  This fear, however unlikely, is deep seated and unshakeable

As per my previous report, reasonable adjustment were proposed.  Management have proposed safeguards to minimise risk. Management state that it was not possible to remove her from the shop floor, (e.g. to office work) and hence eliminate risk.  Therefore risk, however small, continues to exist in her current mental state and this risk is not acceptable to her.

(The complainant) is not happy with the solutions proposed.

She is receiving appropriate care from her health care professionals.

A meeting to discuss this report took place on 25th April 2022.  One of the issues discussed was the possibility of a role in the cash office. Mr B confirmed that there was also a risk with that as indicated in a previous OH report and that there was no vacancy in that role.

By letter dated 19th May 2022 the respondent stated as follows;

As you are aware, the company doctor is of the opinion that you are unfit to work unless we can accommodate you in a colleague admin role that you had identified to the doctor as being the only role that you believe would suit you.  As you are aware there is no vacancy for the colleague admin role and we have confirmed this in a number of meetings with you and in correspondence also.  Unfortunately, we cannot create a position for you that does not exist.

During your absence we have requested a report from your own doctor to understand if he had an alternative opinion to that of the company doctor.  You have not provided such a report however you did confirm to the company doctor that your GP was of the opinion that you were unfit to return to work and had no return date in the foreseeable future.

Throughout your absence the Company has supported you and has made every effort to support a return to work for you taking into consideration your illnesses.  More recently based on your own representation and the Company Doctor’s report we have identified areas in which we can provide reasonable accommodation to support a return to work for you.  However, you confirmed to both the undersigned and the company doctor that the solutions proposed were not acceptable to you.

To this end whilst we have held your position open for you to date, we cannot do so indefinitely.  In light of the OH report and your own representations, there are no grounds for holding your position open for you given that you will not be in the position to resume working in the near future.

We must therefore now advise that we are left with no option but to terminate your contract of employment on grounds of ill health.

The complainant appealed this decision and the appeal was unsuccessful.

In Nano Nagle v Daly (2019) IESC 63 the OH confirmed that the employee had completed satisfactory recovery and, despite her ongoing injury, she was fit to return to many of the duties of a SNA.  These facts distinguish that case from the within case.  There was no medical advice confirming that the complainant was fit to return to work throughout the entirety of her absence from work.

The complainant was offered a position in clothing within the store which was consistent with her general job description and duties but this was rejected.  She was intent on being offered work in the cash office or an admin role.  No vacancies existed and it was further recommended in the OH report that handling cash could potentially be a source of risk to the complainant, a position that she had agreed with herself.  The only other admin role was being filled on a full-time basis by another member of staff.

The case law on reasonable accommodation is clear that the expectation on an employer is not to create a new role for an individual or to transfer an employee to an alternative role, but rather to provide the individual with such accommodation that would reasonably enable him or her to return to their own role.

The complainant alleges that the respondent failed to provide her with reasonable accommodation in respect of her disability. Section 16(1) of the Employment Equality Act recognises the fact that there is no legal obligation of an employer to retain an employee who, even with the provision of reasonable accommodation, is not able to perform the essential functions of their jobs.   However, where reasonable accommodation does render them able to do their duties, any purported dismissal would be considered unlawful. Section 16(1) can provide a full defence to a claim of discriminatory dismissal or to less favourable treatment, given that an employer is entitled to have capable and competent employees who are able to perform the roles attached to the position.  However, any reliance on section 16(1) is contingent on the obligations of reasonable accommodation being adhered to in full by the employer prior to the termination of employment.  Any assumptions about the ability of the employee to continue in employment due to their disability in the absence of any medical or occupational assessment will render the dismissal a discriminatory dismissal. 

The Legislation

Section 16 of the Employment Equality Act addresses the nature and extent of employer’s obligations to provide reasonable accommodation. Subsection 16(1) states:

16(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.

Of particular relevance is subsection 16(1)(b) above. Subsection 16(3) expands on the concept of ‘fully competent’:

16 (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 —

(i) the financial and other costs entailed,

(ii) the scale and financial resources of the employer’s business, and

(iii) the possibility of obtaining public funding or other assistance.

 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 summary, this means that an employer must facilitate a person with a disability to access and advance in employment by taking appropriate measures. These measures may include modifying the job description itself, in terms of tasks or working hours to accommodate the employee but having consideration for the costs involved and the business needs of the company.

As per section 85(a) of the Act, the burden of proof lies with the complainant in the first instance to establish primary facts from which an inference of discrimination may be.

The Act defines disability as:

(a) the total or partial absence of a person’s bodily or mental functions, including the absence of a part of a person’s body

(b) the presence in the body of organisms causing, or likely to cause, chronic disease or illness,

(c) the malfunction, malformation or disfigurement of a part of a person’s body,

(d) a condition or malfunction which results in a person learning differently from a person without the condition or malfunction, or

(e) a condition, illness or disease which affects a person’s thought processes, perception of reality, emotions or judgement or which results in disturbed behaviour,

and shall be taken to include a disability which exists at present, or which previously existed but no longer exists, or which may exist in the future or which is imputed to a person;

So, while the scope of the definition is quite broad it is incumbent on the employee to put the employer on notice in relation to any disability and reasonable accommodation that may be required.

Section 85A of the Act imports the burden of proof requirement to be established by both the complainant and the respondent. The section shifts the burden of proof to the respondent where facts are established by a complainant ‘from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination in relation to him or her’. In the within case it is not disputed that the complainant was dismissed on the grounds of ill-health.  In these circumstances I believe she has established a prima facie case of discriminatory dismissal and the burden of proof has shifted to the respondent to show that the dismissal was not discriminatory.  

Relevant Cases

Two cases of primary significance in the area of reasonable accommodation are Niamh Humphreys v Westwood Fitness Centre [2004]E.L.R. 296 and Nano Nagle School v Daly [2019] IESC 63

The general principles set out in Humphreys v Westwood Fitness Club require an employer to make a bona fide informed decision regarding a disabled employee’s capabilities before concluding that he or she is unable to perform the duties of employment. The Labour Court found that the Company acted wholly or mainly from the belief that the complainants medical condition impaired her ability to carry out the duties for which she was employed in dismissing her. This decision was taken without obtaining any medical advice or undertaking any risk assessment in relation to her disorder. The Court also found that an employer must inform the employee that dismissal on the grounds of incapacity is being considered. 

In applying these principles to the within case I am satisfied that the respondent met the required tests in arriving at an informed decision as to the likelihood of the complainant being capable of performing her duties of employment. In this regard I note the numerous attempts made by the respondent to get all of the relevant medical advice and the somewhat limited engagement by the complainant in the process.

The respondent also informed the complainant that dismissal on the grounds of incapacity was being considered.

In the Nano Nagle School v Daly [2019 IESC 63 case the respondent in that case undertook considerable assessments to explore the feasibility of a return to work. The occupational therapist’s report stated that the employee could perform some of the tasks expected of a Special Needs Assistant but when it became evident that she lacked the capacity to undertake all of the duties that she had previously performed the school refused to allow her to return. The Supreme Court held that employers were obliged to consider all appropriate measures which could be undertaken to provide reasonable accommodation and to demonstrate, if no such measures were taken, that this was only because those measures would be disproportionate or unduly burdensome.

In relation to the distribution of tasks Justice John McMenamin in the Nano Nagle case found; The test must be one of fact, to be determined in accordance with the employment context, instances of which are as illustrated in s.16(3). The test is one of reasonableness and proportionality: an employer cannot be under a duty entirely to re-designate or create a different job to facilitate an employee. It is, therefore, the duty of the deciding tribunal to decide, in any given case, whether what is required to allow a person employment is reasonable accommodation in the job, or whether, in reality, what is sought in an entirely different job. Section 16(1) of the Act refers specifically to “ the position ”, not to an alternative and quite different position.

Justice McMenamin continued in Paragraph 106

But I would again wish to emphasise these conclusions are not to be understood as requiring a situation where the duty of an employer is understood as having to provide an entirely different job. The duty of accommodation is not an open-ended one. There is no obligation to redefine the employment of an airline pilot as an airline steward, or vice versa. The question is, rather, to consider whether the degree of redistribution, or “accommodation”, is such as to effectively create a different job entirely, which would almost inevitably impose a disproportionate burden on an employer. Even within the scope of compliance, a situation may be reached where the degree of re-arrangements necessary, whether by allocation of tasks, or otherwise, might be such as to be disproportionate. It is a matter of degree, capable of being determined objectively.

(107). Once consultation, or other necessary steps for compliance, have been taken, an employing entity may have to ask itself the ultimate question whether, having explored the modes of accommodation, and if, prudently having consulted with an employee, the position, as defined in s.16(1), is, in fact , capable of adaptation so as to accommodate that complainant, and whether the complainant would be capable of performing that function thus adapted. But it is that “position ” or job , not another one. If there is a challenge to this decision, this must be assessed objectively by the tribunal vested with the statutory duty of carrying out such an enquiry, and also vested with the expertise to carry out such assessment. If, on reasonable accommodation, a complainant is unable to fully undertake the duties attached to the position, then the Act provides there can be no finding of discrimination

From the evidence given at the hearing it is clear that the complainant suffered from a disability, namely the allergy to fish.  She suffered associated stress arising from this disability and it was an attempt to alleviate this stress that underpinned her position that working in the cash office or administration was more suitable for her condition, than working in the clothing department, which was the offer made by the respondent.  I note that she acknowledged that there was a possibility of fish contaminant being on cash which again could have had severe consequences for her and there was no medical/scientific evidence presented that working in the Cash office alleviated the possibility of exposure to the fish traces.  

I believe the principles of the Nano Nagle case are particularly relevant in the within case.  The complainant’s substantial job was as a customer assistant and not as an administration worker and I don’t believe these two positions can be conflated under one job description.  In any event there was no vacancy in administration.  In relation to the Cash Office, I note that there was a possibility of fish traces being on cash, a fact acknowledged by the complainant.  Again, there was no vacancy and I don’t believe transferring someone from their role – the existing person in the Cash Office - could be regarded as a requirement under reasonable accommodation. The proposals made by the respondent in relation to the clothing section, and the adjustments made by the respondent to avoid the possibility of food being left in that section, seem to me to have met the requirements of the Act in relation to reasonable accommodation.  I therefore conclude that the complainant’s dismissal was not discriminatory

The dismissal was not discriminatory

Discriminatory dismissal and reasonable accommodation