Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Renata  Capala

Maybin Support Services (Ireland) Limited Momentum Support

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Representatives

 Ms Barbara Maciejewska,  Independent Workers Union (IWU).

Mr Dermot O’Loughlin, Alpha Employment Representation Services.

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014

CA-00048671-001

16/02/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00048671-002

16/02/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005

CA-00048676-001

16/02/2022

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

CA-00048676-002

16/02/2022

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 20th February 2006, she was employed as a Cleaning Operative.

Two complaints were received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 16th February 2022.

The Complainant has been absent from work since 21st May 2020.

CA – 00048671 – 001. Complaint submitted under Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014.

The Complainant is an employee of Momentum Support for over 15 years now. She has lodged a complaint with her employer on a number of grounds namely; Health and Safety at her work place, bullying and harassment at her workplace and Terms and Conditions of Employment.

The health and safety at her workplace is of particular importance and was a subject of an extensive dispute between the Complainant and her employer.

Health and Safety issues she has addressed formally were in relation to the following:

·        lack of proper training given to the Complainant and a number of other staff

·        Covid-19 training,

·        Lack of PPE at workplace - particularly important during pandemic

·        Lack of adequate cleaning equipment and chemicals to clean hospital areas,

·        very dangerous situations caused by other staff using cleaning equipment inadequately.

The Complainant has stated that an example of this is that she found a hoover filled up with water on her work station -this could have led to a very dangerous situation due to other employees not knowing how to properly use the equipment correctly  (equipment not made for water hoovering).

This and more were reported to a number of managers who did not recognise the Complainant’s serious health and safety concerns.

Instead, on the final appeal meeting that took place with Mr. Ferguson (Momentum Support Operations Manager) she received a clear message that the situation with the hoover was closed.

The Complainant disagreed with him as no explanation was given to her which resulted in a threat that if she was to continue with health and safety issues (case with hoover) she will face disciplinary actions.

The Complainant was represented at this meeting by an official of the Independent Workers Union (IWU) who clearly pointed out to Management that the Complainant had made a protected disclosure under the Health, Safety and Welfare at Work Act, 2005 and the Complainant should not be victimised for making such a disclosure.

Mr Ferguson informed the Complainant that the subject of the hoover was closed and if she continued to complain about the hoover the matter would lead to disciplinary action against the Complainant.

The Complainant feels that she was being blamed over the hoover incident and this has left her feeling that she is being exposed to enormous stress and anxiety which she is still suffering from.

The Complainant believes that this situation shows how little respect her employer has for Health and Safety and also a total lack of respect that Management has for cleaning staff in such an important and meaningful operation at the hospital.

PART 2 of Protected Disclosures Act 2014 states that:

Protected disclosures

5. (1) For the purposes of this Act “protected disclosure” means, subject to subsection (6) and sections 17 and 18, a disclosure of relevant information (whether before or after the date of the passing of this Act) made by a worker in the manner specified in section 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 or 10 .

(2) For the purposes of this Act information is “relevant information” if—

(a) in the reasonable belief of the worker, it tends to show one or more relevant wrongdoings, and (b) it came to the attention of the worker in connection with the worker’s employment.

(3) The following matters are relevant wrongdoings for the purposes of this Act—

(a) that an offence has been, is being or is likely to be committed,

(b) that a person has failed, is failing or is likely to fail to comply with any legal obligation, other than one arising under the worker’s contract of employment or other contract whereby the worker undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services

(c) that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur,

(d) that the health or safety of any individual has been, is being or is likely to be endangered (…)

Schedule 2 12. (1) of Protected Disclosures Act 2014 states that:

An employer shall not penalise or threaten penalisation against an employee, or cause or permit any other person to penalise or threaten penalisation against an employee, for having made a protected disclosure.

Renata has lodged an informal and formal internal complaint with her employer where she is of the view that her concerns raised on the grounds of:

• Health and Safety at her work place

• Terms and conditions of employment should be recognised as the potential employer wrongdoings that the health or safety of any individual has been, is being or is likely to be endangered. This also refers to terms and conditions of employment. All efforts have been made to let the employer know how serious the raised health and safety matters are and that they do have impact not only on Renata’s individual health, but also may have substantial impact on health and safety of her co-workers, hospital staff and most importantly public health – patients who come to hospital to seek help.

Unfortunately, the employer neglected the fact that Renata made protected disclosures on health and safety grounds and terms and conditions of employment. She was not afforded the protection. The employer did not recognise Renata as “Whistle Blower” nor follow any protocols related to protection of employees who made protected disclosures. Instead, during the internal grievance process – at the appeal meeting with Mr. David Ferguson Operations Director, on 6/07/2021 Renata was threatened with disciplinary actions.

 It was clearly stated to the Complainant that if she will not let go on health and safety matters in particular related to near miss with hoover, there will be disciplinary action against her. Someone’s misuse of the equipment (filling it up with water) could be fatal for the Complainant as a result of potential electrical shock. Yet, she is to be blamed and informed that this matter is closed. The employer produced falsified health and safety protocol called Incident Protocol from the health and safety incident with hoover, to use it during the appeal meeting against the  Complainant and on that basis threatened her with disciplinary actions.

The Complainant is certain that the statement was produced as a threatening tool.  The Incident Report was long time requested by the Complainant on 14/09/ 2020, where Mr. Ian Hyland verbally refused Renata access to it during absenteeism meeting. This was addressed on number of communications starting with request sent to Ms. Hoti on 15/09/2020 to forward the Incident Report in question. This however never happened which confirms a doubtful existence of the Incident Report at that time. At this stage the Complainant is convinced that the company was only interested in covering up all wrongdoings even for the price of letting go long lasting, hardworking staff like herself.

The Complainant, by rising her health and safety concerns acts in a public interest matter- properly cleaned hospital spaces with adequate chemicals and equipment by well qualified staff are key preventive measures in infection control and are fundamental to ensure health and safety of hospital personnel and the patients.

The Complainant did her best to widely address all issues in numerous written communications to include exhausting internal grievance process and also addressing health and safety issues over a number of months of the Complainant’s  employment taken with a number of managerial staff of all levels. Unfortunately, despite her best will, none of major issues raised was recognised and admitted by the company.

The following major changes and actions have been made by the company after the Complainant’s extensive and persistent complaints to the company management:

• Lack of Covid 19 protocols addressed by the Complainant in her internal grievance forced the company, Momentum Support to prepare protocols which were eventually delivered to the Complainant by Mrs. Grogan on 01/04/2021, over a year after Covid 19 pandemic started. The  lack of these protocols exposed the Complainant, the hospital staff, Momentum staff and public to health and safety risks which should never take place if Momentum would genuinely care about this issue. This was widely discussed with the Momentum management, yet the complaint has never been recognised by the company. These protocols were not available to view by the Complainant back in September 2020 when during the absenteeism meeting with Ms. Hoti and Mr. Ian Hyland they were requested to view. The Complainant saw them for the  first time ever in April 2021 when delivered by Mrs. Grogan.

• The fact that the Complainant  was threatened with disciplinary action if she would not drop the complaint over health and safety – vacuum cleaner filled up with water; and a preparation by the company falsified incident report (signed by Ian Hyland) that was used to threaten the Complainant with disciplinary actions, shows that the company does not care about the  health and safety of their employees, hospital staff and public safety – only to cover up their wrongdoing and make the Complainant silent.

• Grievance on lack of Health and Safety Representatives in her workplace was never addressed by the management.

• Any issues related to Health and Safety were commented – that the company has protocols in place which they follow – case closed. This does not mean the protocols are implemented and followed or that the company is genuinely promoting a health and safety culture. The approach given to the Complainant’s concerns shows exactly the opposite situation.

CA – 00048671 – 002. Complaint submitted under s.7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

The Complainant contends that she was not issued with a statement containing the particulars of employment as prescribed by the Act.

The Complainant contends that she commenced employment with the Respondent in 2006 and in all this time she did not receive a contract of employment.

CA – 00048676 – 001. Complaint submitted under section 28 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005.

28.— (1) Without prejudice to section 27 (4), an employee may present a complaint to a rights commissioner that his or her employer has contravened section 27.

27.— (1) In this section “penalisation” includes any act or omission by an employer or a person acting on behalf of an employer that affects, to his or her detriment, an employee with respect to any term or condition of his or her employment.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), penalisation includes—

(a) suspension, lay-off or dismissal (including a dismissal within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2001), or the threat of suspension, lay-off or dismissal,

(b) demotion or loss of opportunity for promotion,

(c) transfer of duties, change of location of place of work, reduction in wages or change in working hours,

(d) imposition of any discipline, reprimand or other penalty (including a financial penalty), and

(e) coercion or intimidation.

(3) An employer shall not penalise or threaten penalisation against an employee for—

(a) acting in compliance with the relevant statutory provisions,

(b) performing any duty or exercising any right under the relevant statutory provisions,

(c) making a complaint or representation to his or her safety representative or employer or the Authority, as regards any matter relating to safety, health or welfare at work,

(d) giving evidence in proceedings in respect of the enforcement of the relevant statutory provisions

(e) being a safety representative or an employee designated under section 11 or appointed under section 18 to perform functions under this Act, or

(f) subject to subsection (6), in circumstances of danger which the employee reasonably believed to be serious and imminent and which he or she could not reasonably have been expected to avert, leaving (or proposing to leave) or, while the danger persisted, refusing to return to his or her place of work or any dangerous part of his or her place of work, or taking (or proposing to take) appropriate steps to protect himself or herself or other persons from the danger.

The Complainant is of the view that she was penalised by her employer for:

(a) acting in compliance with the relevant statutory provisions,

(b) performing any duty or exercising any right under the relevant statutory provisions,

(c) making a complaint or representation to his or her safety representative or employer or the Authority, as regards any matter relating to safety, health or welfare at work,

(f) subject to subsection (6), in circumstances of danger which the employee reasonably believed to be serious and imminent and which he or she could not reasonably have been expected to avert, leaving (or proposing to leave) or, while the danger persisted, refusing to return to his or her place of work or any dangerous part of his or her place of work, or taking (or proposing to take) appropriate steps to protect himself or herself or other persons from the danger.

CA – 00048676 – 001 - Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998.

The Complainant has raised a complaint of being denied opportunity for promotion or increased salary, where she was almost 15 years with Momentum and the hospital environment. Despite that she was still earning the same money as a newly hired employee which was 10.80 euro/hour. Much less experienced staff, for some inexplicable reason have been promoted to supervisor levels with its concomitant salary rise. This has never been offered to her. Her hard work, continuous support whenever and wherever needed, has effectively gone unacknowledged. The right to promotion and salary rise supposed to be guaranteed in her contract of employment. The same contract supposed to guaranteed her the right to equality and protection from discrimination. Her complaint was not recognised. Therefore, the Complainant submitted a complaint to WRC to seek recognition of this issue. In the correspondence received after case being lodged to WRC from the company it is stated that: "All of the company’s new opportunities are displayed on each site, and within SJH posted on the door of the sign in room along with the staff notice board”.

The Complainant wishes to stress that maybe the above situation is present now, but it was not the  case when she was commencing duties before she lodged an internal grievance with the company complaining about being discriminated by not having opportunity to be promoted and no access to such information. Back then, the company did not list on any doors, work opportunities nor promotions. The mentioned board did not exist either. Clearly her complaint causes some improvement in the company actions by making at least some effort to communicate better with the employees, if only this duty is carried out by the company. The Complainant wishes to inform that till the end of her employment in April 2023 she has never received any mailing from Momentum recruitment. At this stage she is of the view that its purpose made action against her. Again, this is simple procedure to add someone to the mailing list. In her case she only heard excuses and explanations that has caused frustration and showing that the company cannot deal with basic tasks such as add an employee to the mailing list. The employer statement confirms that Renata did not have any access to any information that would allow her career progression: "Renata was added to our weekly recruitment mailing list when she made me aware that she was not receiving during her Absence Review Meeting namely 09th September 2022." The Complainant seeks full explanations as to why she is refused access to employee information. This is clearly discriminatory action against her, yet another way of giving her hard time and force her to leave.

The Complainant is of the view that the following statement is a pure propaganda, which was not a case when she was working on site: "Please be reminded that Momentum Support actively promote internal progression and will continue to advertise all roles internally as and when they arise to ensure all the team are aware of new opportunities so they can progress if they so wish."

After 15 years of hard work, being such a valuable employee as the company stated, she would carry different responsibilities if career progression would be possible and accessible to everyone. It was not a case for her. She was excluded from being informed about any opportunities, as she was not 'a favourite one' to Ms. Mooney- local Momentum Support supervisor and Deputy Manager at St. James’s Hospital. The Complainant wishes to inform that the promotions were given/offered to particular people behind closed doors with certain connections to local management, not by work performance, knowledge and experience. Therefore, the Complainant does not agree that the situation described above and is true to her circumstances and was functional back a couple of years ago. She was not equally treated. There was no such a thing like internal application process as there was no subject officially announced open to applications - at least not applicable to her. The system the employer describe in the communications simply did not function at that time. In the communication it is also stated by Mr. Hyland the following: "I refute that Momentum Support have not allowed Renata to be promoted, as all applicants are interviewed by a site manager as per our recruitment process ", and "Could you please advise of the positions/dates that Renata has previously applied? "

Again, there were no positions announced internally on any doors and the board did not exist. The Complainant informed her manager on number of occasions that she would be keen to learn and go further with her career and also was asking for different job locations to Ms. N. Mooney. The response was in a form of very rude comment after which Renata felt like she is worthless. Also, always was added that if she does not like it, there are others who will take over her job.

Maybin Support is the trading name of Maybin Support Services (Ireland) Limited and was established in 1982. Employing in excess of 2,300 people and delivering more than 3 million hours of service per annum. Momentum provides award-winning consistently high standard of soft services to businesses and organisations based in UK and Ireland.

ABM, one of the world’s largest providers of facility services and solutions acquired Momentum Support (“Momentum”) in April 2022.

General Background / Timeline of Notable Dates.

18th May 2020: The Complainant reports a work incident that is actioned upon by the Company and a report was issued on 26th May 2020.

30th October 2020: Company writes to the Complainant inviting her to an informal mediation meeting.

3rd November 2020: Company sends a reminder to the Complainant in relation to the above.

29th December 2020: Mr Ian Hyland, Operations Manager, writes to the Complainant and addresses her concerns that were raised at a recent meeting.

25th January 2021: Conference call takes place between the parties.

4th February 2021: The Company writes to the Complainant and advises, inter alia, that;

“Should you wish to instigate a formal grievance process, please outline your grievance in writing to Sinead Grogan – Senior Operations Manager by close of business Friday 19th February 2021”

19th February 2021: Ms Capala raises a formal grievance.

2nd March 2021: The Company invite the Complainant to grievance meeting.

11th March 2021: A meeting takes place between the parties.

31st March 2021: Ms Grogan issues her findings to the Complainant and informs her, amongst other things, that;

“In relation to the third issue you raised of bullying and harassment in the work environment, I want to reassure you that the company takes these issues very seriously. Your complaint of bullying will be dealt with under the Dignity at Work policy (copy attached) when you provide the company with these details in writing”.

11th June 2021: The Complainant appeals the outcome of the Company’s findings.

23rd June 2021: Mr David Ferguson, Operations Director, invites the Complainant to an appeal hearing.

6th July 2021: The appeal hearing takes place.

15th July 2021: Mr Ferguson issues the outcome in relation to the Complainant’s various grievances and referring specifically to her bullying and harassment, he stated:

“With regard to the final matter of bullying and harassment, I wish to reiterate that any allegations will be fully investigated upon receipt, in writing, of the details of your complaint.

I note you were requested to do so by Sinead Grogan in her letter dated 31st March 2021. I note to date you have not done so and this letter is to give you one final opportunity to provide these written details by 4.00pm on 22nd July 2021. If we do not receive this information in writing, on 22nd July we will consider the matter closed as we cannot continue to keep these issues open indefinitely”.

22nd July 2021: Ms Barbara Maciejewska, the Complainant’s representative sends a general response to Mr Ferguson’s letter of the 15th July 2021.

28th July 2021: Mr Ferguson replies to Ms Maciejewska. Mr Ferguson’s comments are inserted in red to Ms Maciejewska’s letter of 22nd July 2021. Mr Ferguson again emphasises the need for the Complainant to provide specific details as he needs same so they can be fully investigated. Mr Ferguson requests that this information is provided by 5th August 2021.

5th August 2021: Ms Maciejewska provides responses to Mr Ferguson.

17th August 2021: Mr Ferguson responds to Ms Maciejewska and inter alia, states;

“For the avoidance of doubt, the company’s position has been given on these matters and we will not get any more protracted correspondence as we now consider the matter closed”.

16th February 2021: The Complainant makes formal complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission.

Complaint 1 – CA-00048761 – 001 Penalisation  - Protected Disclosures Act 2014.

1.      No relevant wrongdoings have occurred.

2.      The complaint is a personal grievance that were proper to the Grievance and Dignity at Work procedures that prevailed in the company.

3.      The Complainant has never been penalised by the company.

4.      It is respectfully suggested that this complaint may be statutorily barred as it appears not to have been presented to the Adjudication Services within the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.

Complaint 2 – CA -00048671 – 002 Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994.

Unfortunately, at the time of TUPE, the Company had not been provided with a copy of the Complainant’s contract from her previous employer. However, the Complainant was assured by Mr Hyland and others that her terms and conditions would be honoured and maintained by the company. In addition, the company continued to try and resolve the matter to her satisfaction beyond the period of this complaint.

Complaint 3 – Penalisation – Health, Safety and Welfare at Work Act, 2005.

1.      All health and safety concerns raised by the Complainant were methodically investigated and resolved where necessary. Furthermore, the Complainant offered additional training on her return to work.

2.      The Complainant has never been penalised by the Company.

3.      It is respectfully suggested that this complaint may be statutorily barred as it appears to not to have been presented to the Adjudication Services within the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.

Complaint 4 – CA – 00048676 – 002 – Discrimination.

The Complainant has claimed discrimination by reason of the following:

·        Civil Status

·        Family Status

·        Age

·        Race

·        Treated unlawfully by not getting a job.

·        Treated unlawfully by not being promoted.

·        Treated unlawfully by not getting training.

·        Treated unlawfully by being victimised.

·        Treated unlawfully by being harassed.

The Complainant asserts that the most recent act of discrimination occurred on the 16th February 2022, yet she has not been in work since 21st May 2020. Accordingly and again we respectfully suggest that this complaint is statutorily barred as it is outside the allowable timeframes as set down in the legislation.

Notwithstanding the above the Company totally refutes that the Complainant has been discriminated in any way by the Respondent. During her period of employment with the Respondent company, the Complainant has received all the necessary training, terms and conditions as they apply within the industry.

 CA – 00048671 – 001. – a complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014.

The Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner describe a Protected Disclosure as disclosure by a worker of information about a relevant wrongdoing which they became aware of in a work-related context.

Relevant wrongdoings might be any of the following:

·        Criminal Offences

·        Failure to comply with a legal obligation (other than your contract of employment)

·        Miscarriage of Justice

·        Endangerment of health and safety

·        Damage to the environment

·        Unlawful or improper use of public funds

·        Oppressive, discriminatory or behaviour that constitutes gross mismanagement by a public body

·        Breaches of EU Law

·        Concealing or destroying evidence of wrongdoing

Relevant wrongdoings are usually not any of the following:

·        Exclusively personal workplace grievances

·        Disputes with your employers in relation to your contracts

·        When it is your job to uncover the wrongdoing, for example a police officer investigating a crime or an environmental officer inspecting an oil spill

·        When the information is disclosed in a legally privileged setting.

Complaints by a worker that concern interpersonal grievances between themselves and another worker, or their employer, do not constitute a protected disclosure. These complaints will instead be dealt with through other channels such as agreed grievance procedures.

In the instant case the Complainant made several complaints regarding health and safety issues:

·        lack of proper training given to the Complainant and a number of other staff

·        Covid-19 training,

·        Lack of PPE at workplace - particularly important during pandemic

·        Lack of adequate cleaning equipment and chemicals to clean hospital areas,

·        very dangerous situations caused by other staff using cleaning equipment improperly

Section 13 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 outlines the duty on all employees.

Section 13 (h) reads as follows:

(h) report to his or her employer or to any other appropriate person, as soon as practicable –

       i.          Any work being carried on, or likely to be carried on, in a manner which may endanger the safety, health or welfare at work of the employee or that of any other person,

      ii.          Any defect in the place of work, the system of work, any article or substance which might endanger the safety, health or welfare at work of the employee or that of any other question, or

     iii.          Any contravention of the relevant statutory provisions which may endanger the safety, health and welfare at work of the employee or that of any other person

Of which she is aware.

Whilst these complaints were genuinely made by the Complainant, I do not find that they are protected disclosures. They are the Complainant fulfilling her duty under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005.

CA – 00048671 – 002. Complaint submitted under s.7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

The Complainant contends that she was not issued with a statement containing the particulars of employment as prescribed by the Act.

The Complainant contends that she commenced employment with the Respondent in 2006 and in all this time she did not receive a contract of employment.

At the hearing of the complaint the Respondent could not produce a copy of any contract issued to the Complainant.

This complaint is well founded. The Respondent is in breach of the Act.

CA – 00048676 – 001. Complaint submitted under section 28 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005.

The Complainant contends that she was penalised for making complaints related to her and others health and safety at work.

Section 28(4) of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005 reads as follows:

28(4) A rights commissioner shall not entertain a complaint under this section unless it is presented to him or her within the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates or such further period not exceeding 6 months as the rights commissioner considers reasonable.

Section 28(5) of the Act states:

28 (5) (a) A complaint shall be presented by giving notice of it in writing to a rights commissioner and the notice shall contain such particulars and be in such form as may be specified from time to time by the Minister.

The instant complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 16th February 2022. The cognisable period is 16th September 2021 to the 15th February 2022. The Complainant was absent from work since 21st May 2020.

No specific particulars of penalisation were provided by the Complainant.

I cannot conclude that this complaint is well founded.

CA – 00048676 – 002. A complaint submitted under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act 1998.

The Complainant contends that she was discriminated against in the areas of Race, Age, Civil Status and Family Status. The discrimination included not promoting the complainant, not providing training to the complainant and by victimising and harassing her.

No particulars under any of the protected characteristics were highlighted at the hearing of the Complaint.

In general, a complainant must prove less favourable treatment as compared with another in a similar position to the complainant. Therefore, without a comparator, the claim will fail, and the choice of a comparator is of significant importance to the success of any claim.

In the instant case no comparator was named.

I can only conclude that this complaint is not well founded.

CA – 00048671 – 001. – a complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014.

This complaint is not well founded.

CA – 00048671 – 002. Complaint submitted under s.7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

This complaint is well founded, I now order the Respondent to pay compensation to the Complainant. Such compensation should be in the amount of four weeks pay, a total of €1,401.98. Such payment should be made within 42 days from the date of this decision.

CA – 00048676 – 001. Complaint submitted under section 28 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005.

This complaint is not well founded.

CA – 00048676 – 002. A complaint submitted under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act 1998.

This complaint is not well founded.