Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Karen  Roche

Beacon Hospital

Representatives

Michael Forde BL instructed by J.V. Geary Solicitors

David O’Riordan of Sherwin O'Riordan Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00056147-001

18/04/2023

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

CA-00056147-002

18/04/2023

The Complainant joined the Respondent private hospital on the 26th of September 2016 as a Accounts Administrator working in Accounts Payable section of the Finance Department.

The Complainant went on sick leave in July 2019. The reason given for the sick leave was work related stress. There was sporadic engagement between the parties but the Complainant remained on sick leave for a period of years.

In November 2021 the Respondent indicated that they were considering terminating the Complainant’s contract of the grounds of capability. They did so on the 26th of October 2022.

Parallel Complaints

The Complainant brought complaints under the Unfair Dismissals Act and Employment Equality Acts (“EEA”) but pursued only the Unfair Dismissals Act claim in the hearing. Normally a letter would issue from the WRC requiring a party to choose between the claims and that failure to do so by a relevant date would result in the Unfair Dismissal claim being maintained and the EEA being withdrawn.  This process is set out in Section 101.4A and S.I. No. 126/2016 but on review of the WRC file in this matter it does not appear that the relevant notification was sent.

Notwithstanding this omission the Complainant was fully represented in this matter and  Section 101 of the EEA clearly bars parallel claims.  Aside from the process set out in Section 101.4A, Section 101.4.b states that  an employee who has been dismissed shall not be entitled to seek redress under this Part in respect of the dismissal if ….an adjudication officer has made a decision to which subsection (1) of section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 applies in respect of the dismissal.

As such by issuing a decision in respect of CA-00056147-001 under the Unfair Dismissals Act the Complainant will be barred from seeking redress in respect of CA-00056147-002 under the EEA.

Note re Naming

J.V. Geary Solicitors represented the Complainant in the hearing but they were not on record for her during the course of her employment. Her solicitor from that time was referred to on a number of occasions but they were not at the hearing and I have not identified them. For the avoidance of doubt references to the Complainant’s solicitor in the body of the decision do not refer to J.V. Geary Solicitors.

Other third parties were mentioned in the course of the hearing and I have referred to them by their role. 

The Respondent submitted detailed written submissions and Mr Michael Farrell, the Director of Human Resources (“HR”) gave evidence under affirmation.

He has been the Director of HR since 2017

The Complainant first went off on sick leave on the 29th of July 2019. He was not aware of this at the time. She was examined by an Occupational Health Physician (“OHP”) on behalf of the Beacon in August. He got involved around the time when this assessment was being done and he was notified that the reported reason for the sick leave was stress.

He reached out to the Complainant and arranged to meet with her. His aim was to resolve things quickly and at low a level.  She preferred to meet off site so they met in a nearby coffee shop. He took notes and read through them in the hearing.

The Complainant told him her workload was too high and was expecting it to get worse with upcoming changes. She believed the problems stemmed from the new manager of her department and her immediate supervisor who could not stand up to them. She did not bring her concerns to either her manager or supervisor and did not believe doing so would change things. She was not willing to go back to accounts payable and did not want to meet with the management in her department.

Mr Farrell offered to get her in a different role in the finance department but she wanted to continue working in accounts payable. She suggested that she might be better suited leaving her job and working elsewhere.   

Shortly after this the OHP made a recommendation that the Complainant should engage with the internal HR processes to resolve her concerns about workload. Mr Farrell rang the Complainant on the 27th of August and 30th of August but was unsuccessful in getting through. Mr Farrell was due to go on holidays and passed the matter over to a colleague who was successful in contacting the Complainant. However, the Complainant indicated to this colleague that her solicitor would be in touch.

Mr Farrell returned from annual leave in mid-September and began contacting the Complainant again. He received no answer on multiple occasions and resorted to sending registered post to her house asking her to get in touch. He then received a letter sent by email from her solicitor which was dated from earlier in the month. He had never seen this letter before.

He called her solicitor who suggested a settlement payment. The Complainant’s Barrister Mr Forde stated in the hearing that he had no objection to this evidence or to the admission of the letter of the 6th of September marked without prejudice and requested mediation between the parties.   

Mr Farrell was surprised by request for mediation as he didn’t believe the Respondent and the Complainant were in dispute.

He offered himself up as mediator between the parties and believed he was suitably independent in the circumstances.  This was rejected by the Complainant’s solicitor and despite repeated efforts by the Respondent to engage further contact ceased from the Complainant and her representatives.

They referred the Complainant back to the OHP in March 2020. Initially she said she’d only go with her solicitor but then went anyway. The OHP report again suggested that she needed to address her work concerns with the Respondent and that she appeared to not to want to go back to work. The report noted that the Complainant appeared to have no underlying health issues.

As a result of covid there was a delay on the Respondent’s part. They referred the report to the Complainant 22nd of September 2020. Mr Farrell offered to talk directly to the Complainant and outlined that could not keep her role open forever. The Complainant replied referring him to her solicitor and that she intended to refer to work as soon as she fully recovered from her illness. Mr Farrell again sought to have a telephone call with the Complainant but she did not take him up on the offer.

Matters went quiet again until October 2021. Mr Farrell again emailed the Complainant following a new medical report. In November 2021 they put her on notice that they are thinking of terminating her contract on the grounds of capability. Her response is essentially talk to my solicitor and the same time her doctor started certifying her off work on an annual basis.

Mr Farrell tried to engage again in September 2022 and asked her to attend another occupational health assessment.  She did not attend.

At this point the he determined that they needed to dismiss the Complainant and emailed her a dismissal letter in October 2022.  He believed that she had no intention of returning to work from first conversation in July 2019. He had little engagement since then and when he had contact with her solicitor the discussion was only around a settlement which the Respondent wasn’t willing to engage in. They couldn’t keep her job open for ever and had made every effort to engage with her.

Mr Farrell was cross examined by Mr Forde BL for the Complainant

Mr Farrell outlined that the Respondent does not discipline sick staff. The dismissal letter refers to a disciplinary process in appeal stage. Mr Farrell explains that this was the only appeal mechanism outlined in the handbook.

It was accepted that there was no set procedure for capacity based terminations. They had no difficulty with the Complainant from a disciplinary point of view. Mr Farrell accepts that capacity is referred to in the disciplinary procedure.

When the Complainant didn’t turn up to the occupational health appointment the Respondent didn’t issue warnings  nor did they set up a second attempt at the meeting.  Mr Farrell is of the view that the non-attendance was part of the decision to dismiss but was not determinative.

He ought to engage with her several times to get a understanding of the issues and try to resolve matters.

Mr Forde pointed out that the Respondent through its solicitors rejected that the Complainant had increased workloads.

Mr Farrell was surprised that solicitor was on record at that point. There had been no adversarial engagement up until then. It seemed premature.

He was not aware of any other health issue.

He believed he was a suitable mediator to act between the parties.  

It was suggested that Ms Roche’s department had worked from home during covid and that could have been offered to her. Mr Farrell is clear that he tried to engage with her but he couldn’t get sufficient response to explore such options with her. He did try to engage with the Complainant directly and through her solicitor but neither engaged. No grievance or other HR process was initiated by the Complainant. These were clearly outlined in the handbook.

Mr Farrell disputes that the Complainant’s solicitors letter was a grievance.  It referred to issues but the purpose of the letter was to that request the hospital to engage with her solicitor, who then asked for a settlement. There was no mention of progressing a grievance or dispute.

Mr Farrell didn’t conduct an investigation but he spoke to the immediate local management informally to get an idea of the issues. They had agreed there had been change in how the department operated but were not of the view that it would have result in increased workload.

Mr Farrrell noted that some of the key figures in that department, including the person the Complainant had raised issues about to him, had ceased working for the Respondent over the course of the Complainant’s sick leave.

Mr Farrell accepts there was no follow up from the hospital at certain periods. It was unprecedented circumstances during the height of the pandemic. The hospital was essentially taken over by the state over those months.

Mr Forde pointed out that the medical reports do not state that there no reasonable prospect of return to work. Mr Farrell outlined that the decision made in the round. She had been out of work without engagement for three years. They put her on notice of what might happen. 13 months later they still had no engagement. She had refused to go to the requested medical evaluation. They tried to give every reasonable opportunity for her to return to work.

Mr O’Riordan was given an opportunity to redirect Mr Farrell.

Mr Farrell accepts that the of the word disciplinary in the dismissal letter was a mistake. It was an administrative error arising from the use of a template letter. 

The Complainant made legal submissions and the Complainant Karen Roche gave evidence under affirmation.

She had always worked in accounts payable.  She had 30-35 years’ experience in the area. She had no prolonged period of absence before.

She first joined the hospital on a fixed contract. She got along well with everyone.

She always had a huge workload and would take the work others wouldn’t handle. She would usually get the problem cases. They had always sought more help for the finance department but never got it. She became permanent in 2018. She initially reported to a team lead but then they hired a supervisor above him. She was contracted to work 27.5 hours but regularly did about 10 hours above that.

She worked 7 am until half 3 or 4 most days.

Her duties included inputting invoices, doing the receipting and reconciliations as well. These were time specific tasks. She had no one to hand her work over to. She liked to be on top of what she does so voluntarily undertook more hours to stay up to date.  Much of the progress of her workload was reliant on other people who would sign off on payments.

A significant change was proposed in how the department operated and new system was coming in. She went sick and if she returned, she would have had to be trained.

At the time there was a backlog of work. Her supervisor was undergoing a medical procedure and was off work a lot. This overlapped with the Complainant taking 5 weeks annual leave to go to Australia. This all resulted in a significant backlog. There was no additional help offered, such as temporary agency staff.

The Complainant had shingles before in 2018 due to the pressure of work.

The weeks leading up to her going on sick had been extremely busy. They were not fully staffed and faced a constant workload.

She met with occupational health 3 or 4 days before she met with Mr Farrell in August 2019. She disputes his note of the meeting. She was told that she couldn’t return to work without a meeting with Mr Farrell and her team lead. She was also told that in no circumstances she could go back at the end of her sick note.

She was placed on anti-anxiety medications and her dose was progressively increased until her termination. After the 16th of August 2019 she became reclusive and did not leave the house except for a walk once a day.

She doesn’t believe the OHP reflected what she said to him in her reports. She told him about her medications, but he said that she didn’t want to take any in his report.

The first time she went to the OHP he kept asking her to resign and said if he was in her position, he would resign.

She did not engage with the IR/HR processes because she did not know about them. She had no induction. She felt everyone was just pushing her to resign.  

The second occupational health consultation and report was carried out in March 2020.  She had gotten much worse. She suffered from a chronic condition and phobias. It was a nightmare.

She had huge issues engaging with the hospital by email. If she saw an email from Mr Farrell it would take her a week to look at it. She didn’t make him aware of this.

In reference to the third report from September 2021 she agrees that she could have started working from home. Mr Farrell contacted her around that time but she couldn’t engage.

She would have tried hybrid working. She believes she would have been able to return in early 2023. She always had the goal getting better and returning to work.  She was not interested in money.

She was not referred on to any other specialist doctors other than the OHP.

They didn’t go through the sick pay scheme or offer discretionary sick pay. She was not told about the EAP. She didn’t know about her potential entitlements. She did not receive covid entitlements.

She got dismissal her letter by email. She couldn’t read it for a couple of days.

There was another appointment with the OHP prior to this. She didn’t want to go. it would be more of the same and she would need to take tablets to be able to engage.

She couldn’t think straight. She decided to engage a solicitor because she needed help. She couldn’t even really instruct that solicitor.

The medication made it very difficult for her to engage. Her life was ruined. She cut back on everything and used her savings.

She applied to jobs from 20th of April this year until the 3rd of October just before the hearing. She is still suffering from illness but she can work. She can do accounts payable and is looking for work.

 No return to work plans were ever communicated to her by the Respondent.

 She wasn’t really capable of figuring the appeals process out.

The Complainant was cross examined by Mr O’Riordan.

She doesn’t believe her engaging more would have made a difference. They wanted her resignation from the start.

She believes this was because of the OHP’s treatment of her. She feels he was biased. On one occasion he grabbed her by the arms and shoved her into the chair.

She never raised this with the OHP or her employer. She was so upset afterwards.

She commenced the stronger dose of medication in December 2019.

She believes Mr Farrell was trying to get her to resign when they met in August 2019. She disputes that she considered resigning.

She saw no other suitable roles in the hospital. She disputes the OHP’s report of August 2019 that said she said she never wanted to go back.

It was never put to her that she could do a phased return to work.

She did challenge some of what the OHP was putting in his reports to the OHP directly. This is why she emailed seeking a copies of her reports.  

She responded to the emails as best she could. 

Mr Riordan pointed out that the few times she did response it was to tell them to engage with her solicitor. The Complainant was unaware of her solicitor asking for money. The first time she was aware of it was Mr Farrell’s evidence.

The solicitor acted beyond her instructions and then stopped writing to the Respondent even though she continued to email her and asked her to respond.   

The Law

It is common case that the Complainant has the requisite service to be covered by the protections afforded under the Unfair Dismissals Act.

Section 6 of the Unfair Dismissals Act outlines that any dismissal is an unfair dismissal contrary to the act, unless there are substantial grounds justifying the dismissal. It is for the Respondent to prove that such grounds exist and that they were the cause of the dismissal.

The Respondent argues they were entitled to dismiss the Complainant as Subsection 4 (a) provides that a dismissal shall not be an unfair dismissal if it results wholly or mainly from the capability of the employee to perform their role.

The Respondent points to the reasonableness test adopted in this jurisdiction in Bank of Ireland v Reilly and the decision of the Labour Court in Humphries v Westwood Fitness Club which sets out the steps an employer must take in a capacity related dismissal.

While Humphries concerns an Employment Equality case it provides a useful guide in establishing the steps an employer should take in determining whether an employee can be dismissed for lack of capacity. The important aspects of the Labour Court’s conclusions are below:

the nature and extent of the enquiries which an employer should make will depend on the circumstances of each case. At a minimum, however, an employer, should ensure that he or she is in full possession of all the material facts concerning the employee’s condition and that the employee is given fair notice that the question of his or her dismissal for incapacity is being considered. The employee must also be allowed an opportunity to influence the employer’s decision.

In practical terms this will normally require a two-stage enquiry, which looks firstly at the factual position concerning the employee’s capability including the degree of impairment arising from the disability and its likely duration. This would involve looking at the medical evidence available to the employer either from the employee’s doctors or obtained independently.

Secondly, if it is apparent that the employee is not fully capable, s.16(3) of the Act requires the employer to consider what if any special treatment or facilities may be available by which the employee can become fully capable.

The section requires that the cost of such special treatment or facilities must also be considered. Here, what constitutes nominal cost will depend on the size of the organisation and its financial resources.

Finally, such an enquiry could only be regarded as adequate if the employee concerned is allowed a full opportunity to participate at each level and is allowed to present relevant medical evidence and submissions

The Complainant’s representative pointed to Mr Purdy’s book, Termination of Employment which provides a detailed chapter on capacity based dismissal. Specifically the Complainant’s representative referred to the following bullet points repeatedly through the hearing prolonged periods of absence employers may be justified in dismissal once:  the absence poses actual or potential problems for the employer; and there is no reasonable prospect of an early return to work.

The Complainant’s representative also referred to a 34-year-old EAT decision, Lawless v DCC, which stated that a failure to obtain a second medical report rendered the dismissal unfair in those specific circumstances.  

Medical Reports and Hearsay

The Complainant’s representative objected to the inclusion of the medical reports in the hearing. He pointed out that the doctor who authored the reports was not present to give evidence and argues that the reports are hearsay.

I am cognisant of the principal set down by the EAT in the well-known case of Looney & Co. Ltd. v Looney UD 843/1984  “It is not for the tribunal to seek to establish the guilt or innocence of the claimant …. Our responsibility is to consider against the facts what a reasonable employer in [the Respondent’s] position and circumstances at that time would have done and decided….”

The purpose of this hearing was not to consider Complainant’s underlying medical condition but the Respondent’s decision to dismiss her. As such the most important Respondent evidence was that of Mr Farrell who made the decision to dismiss the Complainant. He referred to the medical reports extensively in evidence and I am satisfied that he relied on them when he made the decision to dismiss the Complainant.  This process is ultimately about that decision to dismiss. I am satisfied these reports are not hearsay when considered as evidence of that decision and whether it was reasonable. I accept the medical reports cannot contradict the Complainant’s oral evidence that they were inaccurate but that can only be relevant if Mr Farrell knew that the Complainant disputed the contents of the medical reports at the time he made the decision to dismiss her. However, she never challenged the reports before the WRC hearing.

Complainant Allegations Against Solicitor and Occupational Health Physician (“OHP”)

The Complainant made two serious allegations against two named, well established, professionals in the course of the public hearing into these matters.

The first was her own solicitor who she alleges acted without instructions and sought a payment from her employer without her approval. The Complainant never suggested before the hearing that her solicitor had been acting beyond her instructions even though the proposed settlement talks were mentioned in open correspondence, by the Respondent, as far back as October 2019. The Complainant did not provide copies of any emails between her and her solicitor which would substantiate her claim. It was not mentioned in her written submissions or WRC complaint form.

The second was against the OHP who she alleges manhandled her in the course of one of the interviews. This very serious allegation was also made for the first time in the hearing. It never featured in any of the earlier correspondence nor the written submissions.

In line with the position laid out in the above paragraph regarding the medical reports, these allegations cannot be relevant to Mr Farrell’s decision to dismiss the Complainant as he was not on notice of them at the time. The Complainant’s solicitor was on record for her and the Respondent cannot be faulted for treating them as her agent and relying on what they proposed. The Complainant never communicated her allegations regarding the OHP to the Respondent at any time and they cannot be criticised for relying on those reports.

Serious allegations against any person should only be aired in an open hearing where they are relevant to the outcome of the case. Where relevant, they should be contained in submissions made well in advance of the hearing.

Findings of Fact

The Complainant became unwell and was signed off work due to workplace stress in July 2019. The Complainant met with Mr Farrell in August 2019. Both Mr Farrell and the Complainant gave evidence of this meeting. I prefer Mr Farrell’s account as it was more comprehensive, supported by a contemporaneous note and the Complainant’s account of the meeting was not fully put to Mr Farrell in cross-examination. Mr Farrell suggested they might find alternative roles for the Complainant. She indicated that she might never return to work.

An occupational health report was produced in August 2019. It specifically referred to the Complainant expressing a view that she could not return to the Beacon and that she didn’t want to engage with available HR processes to address her concerns. The report suggested she should engage with HR and that she was fit to do so. It confirmed to the Respondent that she was unfit for work.

The Complainant instructed a solicitor who came on record for her and alleged in a letter to the Respondent that she was the victim of an insidious campaign to force her resignation and that she had been extremely overworked.  Mr Farrell and that solicitor spoke over the phone, and that solicitor sought a settlement, which Mr Farrell ruled out. As outlined earlier in this decision, the Complainant, through her representatives, did not try to argue that these conversations were without prejudice.

Even if the Complainant was seeking an exit payment from September 2019, the Respondent must establish grounds justifying the dismissal of the Complainant. However, this dispute explains why the Respondent wasn’t interested in inter-partes mediation with an independent mediator. They clearly believed that such a mediation was solely to seek a settlement payment. The Respondent was not obligated to engage with the Complainant via an independent mediator. There was an ongoing employment relationship between the parties and the medical advice was that the Complainant was fit to engage with the Respondent. While the Complainant now alleges that the medical advice was inaccurate, neither the Complainant nor her solicitor notified the Respondent of this.

The parties corresponded on this dispute regarding mediation throughout October 2019 with the Complainant’s solicitor going silent after the Respondent again ruled out any monetary settlement. Mr Farrell then emailed the Complainant directly seeking to meet to resolve matters. She responded that she was forwarding the email to her solicitor. Mr Farrell responded to this email again seeking to meet with her directly and noting that correspondence from her solicitor had ceased. She responded to this email again notifying him that she was forwarding it on to her solicitor.

The Respondent tried to refer the Complainant to a further occupational health review in January 2020 but she again referred them to her solicitor. She did eventually attend a second occupational health review on the 3rd of March 2020. This report was sent to the Respondent and indicated that she suffered from both workplace stress and had been diagnosed with a chronic condition by her GP which was affected by her stress. The report noted that she was waiting to see what the Respondent would offer her. The OHP again recommended that she engage with her employer to resolve her issues.

As a result of Covid-19 the Respondent was temporarily taken over by the state and was consumed entirely with the public health emergency. They did not follow up with the report until September 2020 when Mr Farrell wrote to her asking her to get in touch so they could discuss how to progress matters. The letter noted that they could not keep her role open for ever. The Complainant again responded indicating that she had forwarded the correspondence on to her solicitor. Mr Farrell responded indicating that he was dealing directly with her and pressing her for a response. She responded to this email stating that she would return once she had recovered from her illnesses. Mr Farrell responded pointing out the conclusions of the medical report were that the Complainant was able to and ought to engage with the Respondent.  She did not respond to that email.

The Respondent arranged a further occupational health review in September 2021. This report noted that the Complainant’s chronic condition had worsened and that she had become socially reclusive. The OHP noted that the Complainant had been out of work for over two years and recommended a graduated return to work beginning with working from home. It again concluded that she was fit to engage with IR/HR processes.

Mr Farrell wrote to the Complainant highlighting that recommendation and seeking to speak with the Complainant. The Complainant responded stating that she had every intention on returning to work as soon as she had made a full recovery from her illness and that she was at a total loss to understand what was required of her beyond that statement.

Mr Farrell again responded on the 23rd of November 2021. He noted her repeated failure to engage with him and gave her an opportunity to source her own medical report. He notified her that the Respondent was considering terminating her contract on the grounds of capability. The Complainant responded to this email and stated that Mr Farrell could engage with her solicitor or through an independent mediator. Mr Farrell replied to this and pointed out that the OHP had found the Complainant fit to engage and that she was choosing not to. He again suggested a date and time for them to meet. This email went unanswered.

The Respondent then wrote to the Complainant seeking to have her assessed again in August 2022. The Complainant responded and referred them to her solicitor. They made an appointment which the Complainant was on notice of but chose not to attend.

When the Complainant failed to attend that assessment, the Respondent wrote to her and summarised their engagement to date. The letter concluded by terminating her employment because there was no return to work date and no reasonable engagement from the Complainant. They offered her a chance to appeal the decision but she did not.

Conclusion

The Complainant was out of work for over three years and was being continuously certified as unfit to work by her GP. There was no prospect of her returning to work which was known or ought to have been known to the Respondent. The Respondent gathered the facts available to them via repeated expert reports. They sought to engage with the Complainant on these reports on numerous occasions over a period of years. They sought to meet with her to resolve any outstanding issues and gain her input on how to return her to work. She failed to engage with these offers in any meaningful way. They notified the Complainant that they were considering terminating her on grounds of capability a year before they did. They gave her the option to submit her own medical reports. She did not challenge the Respondent’s decision or appeal it.

The Complainant’s barrister suggested that the standard for a capacity dismissal was that a medical opinion is required stating explicitly that there was no prospect of the Complainant returning to work. This appears just to have been an assertion on his part and is not grounded in law.

I am satisfied that the Respondent reasonably came to the conclusion that the Complainant did not have the capacity to perform her role. They had no reason to expect that she would regain capacity in the foreseeable future. She had already been on sick leave for nearly three and a half years and had continued submitting sick certs. They could not take any measures to facilitate her return to work because she would not provide them with the necessary engagement or information to do so. I note her evidence that she lacked the capacity to engage, but they could not have known this, particularly while in receipt of medical reports explicating stating she could engage.

The Complainant’s representative also pointed to the disciplinary policy and suggested that this matter arose out of an alleged failure to engage with the Respondent and attend the most recent occupational health review. They suggest that proper procedures were not followed in determining this supposed disciplinary matter, and as such, an unfair dismissal arises.

On the facts available to the Respondent, the Complainant’s refusal to engage was so persistent that it could potentially have been considered serious insubordination. This could have potentially justified disciplinary dismissal in of itself. However, this was not the approach the Respondent took. It is a separate matter to them considering her failure to engage in the context of deciding whether or not she lacked capacity. Just because the Respondent might have been entitled to dismiss the Complainant for two different reasons, that is capacity and insubordination, did not mean they were required to go through both processes.

The Respondent reasonably concluded that the Complainant was not capable of performing her role and dismissed her. They adhered to the standard set by the Labour Court and upheld in the Circuit Court in Humphries v Westwood Fitness Club.

CA-00056147-001

The complaint is not well founded.

CA-00056147-002

As I have issued a decision in CA-00056147-001 Section 101.4.b of the Employment Equality Acts prohibits the Complainant from seeking redress under this act.