LCR22948

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00029169 (CA-00039210-007)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 28 June 2023 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 7 February 2024.

DECISION:

Background to the Appeal

This is an appeal by Ms Claire Conlon (‘the Worker’) from a recommendation of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00029169/CA-00039210-007, dated 23 May 2023) under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (‘the Act’). The Adjudication Officer found that the complaint under the 1969 Act failed for jurisdictional reasons.

The Worker’s Notice of Appeal was received in the Court on 28 June 2023. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 7 February 2024 in conjunction with seven related statutory appeals bearing the following reference numbers: WTC/23/53; PW/23/61; PW/23/62; TE/23/40; RP/23/1 (withdrawn during hearing), ADE/23/76 and ADE/23/77. Each of the foregoing (other than RP/23/1) is the subject of a separate decision/determination.

Brief Factual Background

The Worker was employed by Inspire Wellbeing Company Limited by Guarantee (‘the Respondent’) as a Support Worker between 22 August 2016 and circa 30 March 2021, when she was deemed by the Respondent to have resigned from her employment. In mid-September 2016, the Worker informed the Respondent that she had been diagnosed with an intellectual disability and required additional supports by way of reasonable accommodation to allow her to perform her job. The Respondent did put a number of supports in place in response to the Worker’s request at that time.

In or around 11 April 2019, the issue of further reasonable accommodation for the Worker arose. It was agreed by the Worker and representatives of Management that the Worker would avail herself of four weeks' paid annual leave to allow the Respondent to review her situation and to consider what additional reasonable accommodation could be provided to assist the Worker. The Worker was referred to an occupational health specialist on 20 May 2019 to establish what (if any) further accommodations were deemed necessary in her case. The Worker remained on paid leave from her employment from April 2019 until 1 March 2020 on which date she commenced a period of annual leave that continued until 12 April 2020. As the Worker did not submit a medical certificate to confirm that she was unfit to attend work and did not attend at her workplace her pay was ceased but was restored by the Respondent for the month of June 2020 to enable the Worker to attend a meeting with Management to discuss what workplace adjustments she required and to attend with occupational health.

On 17 August 2020, the Worker referred a total of eight complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission. By letter dated 30 March 2021, the Worker’s Advocate requested that the Respondent cease any communications with the Worker and direct any further communications directly to the Workplace Relations Commission. In or around the same time, the Respondent received a reference request from an alternative employer in the same sector in respect of the Worker, which request included a section seeking information about the reasons why the Worker had left the Respondent’s employment. The Respondent concluded on the basis of the foregoing, in the context of the Worker’s two-year absence from the workplace, that the Worker no longer wished to remain in its employment.

The Worker referred a second complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission on 7 May 2021 in which she alleged that she had been victimised by the Respondent within the meaning of the Employment Equality Act 1998.

The Within Hearing

The Court received a number of written communications from the Worker prior to the within hearing in which she outlined the nature of her disability and listed what she required of the Court by way of reasonable accommodation. The Court was very mindful of the Worker’s circumstances and took the following steps in order to facilitate her in presenting her case: (i) the Court requested those in attendance in the courtroom from the Respondent’s side, other than those whose presence were absolutely necessary to deal with certain procedural matters, to wait nearby until their presence would be required in the courtroom; the Respondent’s team had no difficulty in acceding to the Court’s request and only Counsel, Solicitor and the instructing representative from the Respondent remained in the courtroom. The Worker was present with her (non-legal) Advocate from the National Advocacy Service.

(ii) The Worker had informed that Court that she has difficulty in processing complex information and requested the Court to allow for breaks in the proceedings and to take additional time to progress matters via discreet and manageable (to her) steps. The Court explained to the Parties at the outset how it proposed to accommodate the Worker’s request in this regard while at the same time complying with fair procedures and its own Rules with a view to ensuring that both Parties had a fair opportunity to present its case to the Court. The Court took two breaks of approximately twenty minutes each during the hearing which lasted for a little over two hours. The Court also separated out the issues that arose for discussion and consideration at the outset of the hearing and advised the Parties of its proposed approach. Both Parties indicated they understood and accepted the approach outlined to them. The Court proceeded to follow the approach it had set out at the beginning of the hearing and made strenuous efforts at regular intervals, using plain English, to explain each element of the different issues with respect to which it required the Parties to set out their respective positions.

The Substantive Complaint and Decision

The Adjudication Officer has recorded in his written recommendation that the dispute which gave rise to the within complaint under the Act of 1969 stemmed from a referral to the Worker’s General Medial Practitioner in January 2017. He also records that no further information was proffered by the Worker in relation to the matter in the course of the hearing before him.

Regrettably, nothing changed in that regard in the course of hearing the Worker’s connected appeals. The Court was not given any additional information in relation to the alleged trade dispute, the subject of the within appeal. If follows, therefore, that no complaint under the Act of 1969 has been made out. The Worker’s appeal fails and the recommendation of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Alan Haugh
DC	______________________
9 April 2024	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to David Campbell, Court Secretary.