ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00050066
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Geanette Butler | SOS Kilkenny |
Representatives | Self-represented | Jane Williams B.L. instructed by PKHL |
Complaint(s):
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-00061422-001 | 01/02/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00061422-002 | 01/02/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00061422-003 | 01/02/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00061422-004 | 01/02/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00061422-005 | 01/02/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00061422-006 | 01/02/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00061422-007 | 01/02/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 16/01/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and or Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. The complainant and four witnesses for the respondent undertook to give their evidence under affirmation. However, in the event the respondent chose not to call any witnesses. The complainant was cross examined by the respondent’s representative. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00061422-001 Employment Equality Act The complainant gave her evidence under affirmation. She noted that she was treated unfairly by the respondent after she reluctantly moved employment location for what she thought was six months. She stated she was not allowed revert to her previous location and that this was unfair. The complainant confirmed that her case was not based on gender or any of the other named grounds on to the employment Equality Act. CA-00061422 - 002; - 003; - 004 Terms of Employment (Information) Act CA-00061422 - 005; - 006; - 007 Organisation of Working Time Act In relation to the penalisation claims under both the Terms of Employment (Information) Act and the Organisation of Working Time Act, the complainant confirmed that she had not been seeking information nor to enforce her rights under either Act. She said that she was treated unfairly because her line manager wanted to get a friend into the position that she had formerly occupied. Under cross examination the witness confirmed that she moved location on consent, albeit for a six month period. She had sought documentation from the respondent such as the risk assessment but never received it. She noted that she never agreed to the move becoming permanent in January 2024. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
CA-00061422-001 Employment Equality Act The respondent submitted that no case has been made out under the Gender ground or otherwise under the Employment Equality Act. The respondent noted that the risk assessment sought by the complainant was not in relation to the complainant but was a risk assessment in relation to one of its service users and accordingly it had not been appropriate to release a copy of it to the complainant. However, the respondent submitted that it did not discriminate against the complainant under the Employment Equality Act nor did it penalise the complainant under the other two pieces of legislation cited. CA-00061422 - 002; - 003; - 004 Terms of Employment (Information) Act CA-00061422 - 005; - 006; - 007 Organisation of Working Time Act The respondent also submitted that no case of penalisation has been made out under either the Organisation of Working Time Act nor under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00061422-001 Employment Equality Act In relation to the Employment Equality Acts the complainant confirmed that there was no ground covered by the Act that related to how she was treated. Section 85A(1) of the Act states: Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a complainant from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination in relation to him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary. Therefore, it requires the complainant to establish facts from which it may be inferred that she was discriminated against before the burden of proof shifts to the respondent. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case and in particular the complainant’s confirmation that her complaint did not fall under any of the grounds contained in the Act, I am satisfied that the complainant has not established facts from which discrimination, as defined by the Act. The is no nexus to any of the grounds contained in the Act. Therefore, this complaint is not well founded. Accordingly, I find that the complainant was not discriminated against under any of the grounds contained in the Employment Equality Act. CA-00061422-002; -003; -004 Terms of Employment (Information) Act Section 6(c) of the Act states 6C.— (1) An employer shall not penalise or threaten penalisation of an employee for— (a) invoking any right conferred on him or her by this Act, (b) having in good faith opposed by lawful means an act that is unlawful under this Act, (c) giving evidence in any proceedings under this Act, or (d) giving notice of his or her intention to do any of the things referred to in the preceding paragraphs. In relation to the complaints of penalisation under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, I note that the complainant confirmed that she was not trying to assert her rights under that Act. No evidence was provided of any actions being taken by the complainant that would fall under Section 6(c) of the Act. Therefore, any treatment that she received, although she may feel it is unfair, does not amount to penalisation under the Act. The Act was not contravened. Accordingly, I find that these complaints are not well founded. CA-00061422-005; -006; -007 Organisation of Working Time Act Section 26(1) of the Act states (1) An employer shall not penalise or threaten penalisation of an employee for— (a) invoking any right conferred on him or her by this Act, (b) having in good faith opposed by lawful means an act that is unlawful under this Act, (c) giving evidence in any proceedings under this Act, or (d) giving notice of his or her intention to do any of the things referred to in the preceding paragraphs. In relation to the complaints of penalisation under the Organisation of Working Time Act, I note that the complainant confirmed that she was not trying to assert any rights under that Act. No evidence was provided of any actions being taken by the complainant that would fall under Section 26(1) of the Act. Therefore, any treatment that she received, although she may feel it is unfair, does not amount to penalisation under the Act. The Act was not contravened. Accordingly, I find that these complaints are not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00061422-001 Employment Equality Act Having regard to all the written and oral evidence provided in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complainant was not discriminated against in accordance with the Act. CA-00061422-002; -003; -004 Terms of Employment (Information) Act Having regard to all the written and oral evidence provided in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the Act was not contravened, and this complaint is not well-founded. CA-00061422-005; -006; -007 Organisation of Working Time Act Having regard to all the written and oral evidence provided in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the Act was not contravened, and this complaint is not well-founded. |
Dated: 20-01-2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Employment Equality Act – no nexus to ground – no discrimination – Terms of Employment Information – no penalisation established – no contravention – Organisation of Working Time Act – no penalisation established – no contravention |