ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00009293
Parties:
Representatives | David Gaffney, Gaffney Solicitors | Peter Mcinnes, Mcinnes Dunne Solicitors |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00012193-001 | 29/06/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 21/11/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle
Procedure:
In accordance Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015, following the referral of the complaint 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:
The Complainant worked for an International Biopharmaceutical company from 4 July 2016 until 15 June 2017. His role was a Mechanical Assembler, where he worked a 42-hour week for 635.54-euro gross per week. The Respondent disputed the claims for Reasonable accommodation on Disability grounds and Discriminatory Dismissal. Both parties presented written submissions. The Respondent submission contained extensive detail and background in addition to legal arguments. The Complainants Solicitor submitted that a further complaint had been lodged under the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005 in August 2017. This case addresses the complaints lodged under the Employment Equality Acts alone. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainants Solicitor presented an outline of the case and submitted that his client had been diagnosed as depressed during his employment. This arose during an extended period of Evening shift work. The Complainant submitted a Medical report from his GP dated 12 April 2017 which detailed symptoms of low mood, poor sleep and mental distress which culminated in a recommendation that his client would change to day shift as a more suitable option. The Company did not risk assess this presentation but invited the complainant to an Occupational Health Assessment on April 25,2017. The Complainants representative outlined that the outcome of this consultation was read out to the complainant at a follow up meeting but he wasn’t given a copy of the report until much later .He disputed that the Respondent Manager possessed the necessary qualifications on Dietary advice The Complainant had sought to be realigned to a day shift but this was refused, he was denied reasonable accommodation and was subsequently called to a meeting on 15 June and dismissed and was not offered an appeal of this decision . The Complainant contended that he had been discriminated on grounds of disability. Evidence of the Complainant: Reasonable Accommodation: The Complainant had worked for 2-3 months on day shift. He knew that evening shift was coming down the line and commenced evening shift in October 2016.He began to experience physical and mental changes on this shift which caused him to become depressed. His Line Manager told him that there could be no change to evening work. He worked a pattern of two weeks’ days followed by one week of evenings and he received a weeks’ notice before Nights. He had hoped for an alignment to days when new people were hired onto day shift but he was not offered a swop. During cross examination, the complainant accepted that Occupational Health had recommended life style changes for him but he could change an already “pre-defined” sleep pattern. He accepted that he had not taken up his line Managers suggestions on life style changes as he drank water on an everyday basis as was. He agreed that he had formed a view in the face of this advice He had recommenced work with his father on September 20, 2017.The complainant confirmed that he had not availed of sick leave or actioned the grievance procedure. The Complainant confirmed that he had informed his employer of his disability and confirmed that he asked them to make every effort to make changes in his shift pattern. He confirmed that this was his first experience of working nights and he was not sleeping very well. Dismissal: The Complainant submitted that he was informed that he was to attend a meeting a couple of days in advance and he could bring someone. He did not receive a letter of invitation. He assumed that it was to address the continuation of issues. The meeting took place on June 15. The complainant stated that he was in work early as there was sort of an expectation that he was required to do ongoing overtime. He was informed that the meeting was to start at 4pm and was accompanied by a work colleague. Mr LM read out the letter which confirmed his immediate dismissal. Both he and his work colleague were shocked and there was no mention of an appeal. He observed that MR LM was shocked and very shaken and he formed the view that he was uncomfortable reading out the letter. The Complainant submitted that he had nothing to say and he went home and his colleague resumed work. In closing the Complainants Solicitor referred to case law in Worker V Employer [2005] ELR 113, Mid Staffordshire NHS v Cambridge 2003 ILR, which emphasised that a proper assessment of a disabled persons needs should be imposed. The complainant was not provided with an opportunity to swop his shift and the respondent stopped short of only enquiring what was wrong, when a resolution could have been found in flexibility.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent is a world leader in delivering integrated process solutions and services for manufacturing in the Pharma Industry. The Respondent Global Headquarters is in the US and it has two facilities in Ireland. The Complainant worked on the Cork site which currently has 80 employees at the site. The Complainant commenced work on 11 July 2016 pursuant to a contract of employment. Prior to employment, the complainant was required to and did undergo a medical assessment which validated his fitness to work. The Respondent operates two shifts 7am to 3.30 pm and 3.15 pm to 1.45 am The Complainant commenced working days for Induction and training purposes and while the evening shift was being set up. The Complainant was aware of the impending need to work evenings. the Complainant and all other employees recruited around the same time moved to work on the evening shift when it was inaugurated in October 2016.The Complainant worked the evening shift without significant issue until April 2017. The Respondents Solicitor gave an outline of the Medical report presented in the case. On April 12, 2017, a GP report submitted by the complainant recommended a change to day shift as “is likely to be more suitable for him”. This was followed by an Occupational Consultation and report dated 27 April 2017 which recorded that the complainant was “intolerant of this type of shift work…. And that it is likely that he will continue to be intolerant to it unfortunately “The Complainant was deemed medically fit for work and he would “likely be more suitable to day work” but was advised by the Occupational Health Physician that this type of work may not be available to him in his current place of employment. The HR Manager, (Ms HR) and the Manufacturing Supervisor arranged to meet the complainant on May 4 to discuss the medical reports and what could be done to address same. The Complainant was informed that there were no day shift positions available in any section of the plant and that position was unlikely to change. The Complainant repeated his request to move to days and was reminded that evening work formed an integral part of his employment relationship with the company. The Complainant responded and stated that the evening shift was affecting his health and that he was unable to continue to work on the evening shift. The Respondent was requested by the complainant to forward a rationale for the continuation of the evening shift. The Respondent reaffirmed the earlier position of the two previous meetings, where it had been clearly explained to him that there were simply no available roles on the day shift at that time, or for the foreseeable future. The Respondent wrote to the complainant on June 15 and confirmed that following medical opinion and his refusal to accept the suggestions made by the Respondent to try and address the issues highlighted about working the evening shift. The Respondent submitted that there was no alternative but to terminate his employment. Evidence of Mr LM (Supervisor) Mr LM told the hearing that he had worked at the Cork base for 2.5 years. He confirmed that the second shift commenced in October 2016.The ratio was outlined as 14 evenings :40 days to cover peaks and troughs. The Complainant had not expressed any difficulty before April 12, 2017, when he first approached the Hr Manager and then Mr LM one week later. During the meeting of May 4, Mr LM empathised with the complainant as he had worked nights and understood the necessary adjustment. He recommended that he increase his water intake daily but found the complainant to be dismissive of this suggestion. Mr LM outlined the consideration he gave the complainants request for access to day shift. He considered hi resource allocation and found that he could not move someone on to days as he “was at full capacity on days “. He checked in with the complainant but nothing further in communication terms arose. On June 8, he was approached by the complainant and informed that he was unable to work the second shift. The Complainant was informed that days could not be facilitated. He confirmed that the complainant’s recollection of June 15 meeting was broadly accurate as nobody wants to let anyone go. During cross examination, he confirmed that he did not possess a HR qualification. He saw the GP later and submitted it to HR. He confirmed that he had not seen a standard referral form. He outlined the Company chain of command and reaffirmed that there were 6 employees in the complainants grouping. He confirmed that he did not move the complainant due to the skillset required on days. He rebutted that two employees had been facilitated with transfers to days during the period referred to. The Complainant had been awarded an opportunity on June 8 to continue working with the company. Mr LM confirmed that the complainant was on notice from May 25 that in the absence of an alternative he would have to resign. He confirmed that the decision taken to dismiss the complainant was made the day before the meeting of 15 June. He had prepared the letter in conjunction with the Hr Manager. Mr LM confirmed that there was no rotation of shifts just a fixed shift. He was not aware of a Policy on Reasonable accommodation operational at the company. He accepted that the complainant had expressed a difficulty with his weight and sleeping but did not think that he mentioned driving. He did not consider a referral back to Occupational Health Department. The Respondent contended that the Complainant had not been discriminated against on grounds of Disability .In relying of Section 16(1) of the Acts , the Respondent argued that an employer is not required to retain an employee who will not , or is not available to carry out the duties of the position or who will not accept the conditions under which the duties attached to the post are to be performed or who is not fully competent to carry out the duties concerned .The Respondent submitted that it is entitled to rely on Section 16(1) in circumstances where, based on the medical evidence furnished and the complainants own submissions that he could not work evening shifts and was therefore, no longer fully competent and fully capable of undertaking the duties attached to his position , i.e. an evening shift position . The Respondent went on to argue that Section 16(3) of the Act, to consider appropriate measures did not arise in the face of the obligatory nature of the duties attached to the performance of the role during the evening shift. There was no availability on access to a day duty position and any obligation to create such a position would constitute a disproportionate burden on the Respondent. The Respondent representative referred to the Labour Court case of DJELR v Kavanagh [2012]203 ELR 34, and the true purpose of Section 16(3) of the Act “to provide a person with a disability with appropriate measures or reasonable accommodation to render that person fully capable to undertake the full range of duties associated with their post “ The Complainant in that case had sought alternative employment away from prisoners and this request was deemed by the Court to veer outside the realms of Section 16(3) on appropriate measures .The Respondent , in acknowledging a slight distinguishing feature of the case , that of the association of Section 37(3) of the Act ( Gardaí , Prison and emergency service) submitted that the argument may well have application in the instant case , where the complainant had an evening shift role .The Respondent re-affirmed that the demand to move to day shift strayed outside the Respondents obligations ”under Section 16(3) and the Company was relying on the terms of Section 16(1) in full . The Respondent submitted that every effort had been made to understand the complainants condition via medical reports, an exploration of the viability of transfer to day shift had been undertaken and proved fruitless and the complainant would not engage in any suggestion short of such a transfer. On foot of this wilful refusal, the question of whether the Respondent was then under any further obligation to consider alternative accommodation did not arise. The plant was at full capacity and there was no wriggle room on the evening shift, there were no possibilities. The Respondent contended that this was not an unfair dismissal case and the Respondent was permitted to dismiss the complainant on the grounds presented during the narrow window of April -June 2017 |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have considered both claims advanced in this case. My role is to ascertain whether the Respondent discriminated against the complainant in terms of Section 6 and Section 8 of the Act, whether Reasonable Accommodation was providing to the complainant in accordance with Section 16 of the Act and whether the Complainant was discriminatorily dismissed? In reaching my decision, I have taken account of oral and written submissions and I have applied the law to the facts of the case. Both parties accept that the Complainant developed a depressive illness during his employment, both parties accepted that this constituted a disability. I find that the complainant did possess a disability in accordance with Section 2(1)(e) of the Acts. In the 2012 Publication of Employment Equality Law, 1st edition, By Bolger Bruton and Kimber, Reasonable Accommodation was introduced in the following setting “In the employment sphere, the obligation of reasonable accommodation requires employers to remove barriers and adjust the work environment or structure, in order that disabled individuals are placed in a similar position to their non-disabled counterparts. It requires employers to generally take a proactive approach to locating suitable measures with which an individual with a disability can be accommodated in the workplace. In this regard, it requires an individualised approach by employers. It allows adjustments to be made in order that disabled employees may be deemed capable of performing the essential tasks of a job, but if the individual cannot do so with the aid of reasonable adjustments or if the adjustments are simply too expensive for the employer, then the requirement is not necessary. It involves the person being involved in an interactive dialogue with the employer to search for the right kind of accommodation needed in the overall circumstances of the case.” In Irish Law, Section 16 of the Employment Acts incorporates Article 5 of the Directive EC 2000/78, ‘Reasonable accommodation for disabled persons’, reads as follows: ‘To guarantee compliance with the principle of equal treatment in relation to persons with disabilities, reasonable accommodation shall be provided. This means that employers shall take appropriate measures, where needed in a particular case, to enable a person with a disability to have access to, participate in, or advance in employment, or to undergo training, unless such measures would impose a disproportionate burden on the employer. This burden shall not be disproportionate when it is sufficiently remedied by measures existing within the framework of the disability policy of the Member State concerned.” Nature and extent of employer’s obligations in certain cases. Section 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. ] (4) In subsection (3)— ‘ 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; During my investigation, I considered the complainants statement of terms and conditions of employment which were presented to me by the parties. On the Respondent side, I received a 7-page document which referenced “you must be available to work on a shift pattern as per the business needs”. It also provided for a disability plan of 60%of salary payable after 26 weeks of absence. This document had two separate final pages which recorded a signed acceptance by the complainant on 6 July 2016 and for the company on 12 July. On the complainant side, I received a three-page document which contained variances on that detail, without a record of signed acceptance. I have advanced my investigation on foot of the Respondent version as it was not disputed. A key aspect of this case is that the complainant passed a Medical Assessment prior to his commencement at work. I note that his probation was extended to March 2017, but his work performance was not raised by either Party during the case outside of the Medical Reports, the first of which arrived dated April 12. I did not receive a copy of a Health questionnaire in support of the first day determination of Fitness for work, but I note that the Complainant was a novice at Night work and this fact did not seem to feature in any workplace discussions in the run up to October 24, the commencement of the evening/ night shift duration 3.15pm to 1.45 am. I find that this is an extremely relevant factor in the case as this is an anti-social shift pattern which can in turn prompt an adjustment period. The Complainant did not advance that were any external factors which contributed to his adjustment period on Nights, therefore I have considered the case on the basis that these difficulties emerged through his work setting and I am mindful of the Occupational Health Report which pointed to” a sometime intolerance to this type of shift pattern”. I found the first Medical Report to be a compelling account of an employee in difficulty. I did not hear direct evidence from the GP but I have taken account that his Report culminated in a clear recommendation for access to a revised shift pattern of day time. This was also incorporated in the Company Occupational Health Report, which I accept was read out to the Complainant in early May. I could find no reason for the company to delay furnishing this report to the complainant. I note that the Occupational Health Report addressed suggested lifestyle changes and qualified the complainant’s likely suitability for day work with a reference to a likely lack of day shift availability. The Respondent has chosen to rely on Section 16(1) of the Act in rebutting the complainants claim. Nature and extent of employer’s obligations in certain cases. 16 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 continue to undertake) the duties attached to that position or will not accept (or continue to accept) the conditions under which those duties are, or may be required to be, performed, or (b) is not (or 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. The Respondent has contended that the Complainant refused to continue to undertake the evening shift and failed to engage in meaningful suggestions on lifestyle adjustments to accommodate him at work. The Complainant contended that the Respondent failed in its statutory duty to consider appropriate measures to accommodate his disability in accordance with Section 16(3) of the Act. In the recent Court of Appeal Decision in Nano Nagle Centre v Marie Daly [2016] no 67, the Court held that the complainant, a Special Needs Assistant had not been denied Reasonable Accommodation as a Job Demand Analysis undertaken to evaluate her capacity to perform the 16 essential tasks of her position determined that 7 of the 16 duties were not in her gift to perform due to her disability and reasonable accommodation would not have closed that gap. In the instant case, the facts are somewhat distinguished. The Complainant sought a shift change to address his depressive condition. This was supported by his own GP and in a qualified manner by the Occupational Health Physician. The Respondent met the complainant on May 4 and signalled that day shift could not feature in the short, medium or long term and instead sought to re-affirm the reference to Life style changes contained as a rider in the Occupational Health .This was followed by a repeat request by the complainant some 7 days later where he referred to the perpetuation of the evening shift was causing him great stress .I interpreted this as a cry for help and was disappointed that in light of the lack of progress in terms of accessing day work, this did not trigger a follow up referral to Occupational Health for advice and direction . By June 8, the complainant was in continued difficulty but was met with a repeated position “that here were no available roles on the day shift at that time, or for the foreseeable future.” In Nano Nagle, Justice Finlay Keoghan in the supporting decision interpreted the obligations imposed by Section 16 of the Act: In relation to a position/job is to consider appropriate measures including a redistribution of tasks associated with one or more duties attached to the position such that it enables a disabled person be fully competent or capable of undertaking the duties attached to the post. However, it does not extend to considering the removal from a position a duty which may properly be considered a main duty or essential function of the position by the redistribution of all tasks. The Complainant in Nano Nagle had a permanent disability in which she appears to have made considerable advances such as securing a driving licence for Disabled persons. The Complainant in this case had a sudden onset diagnosed depressive condition attributable to his work. This condition was submitted by the complainant as hindering his full and effective participation in work on an equal basis as other workers. Section 16(3) requires that appropriate measures aimed at delivering on reasonable accommodation can constitute an adaptation of patterns of working times. This is what the complainant sought to address his health concerns. I found that the Respondent, while on clear notice of the complainant’s disability, did not possess a working knowledge of reasonable accommodation as defined in Irish Legislation. They did not have a Policy dedicated to the concept, nor was there a visible precedent mentioned at the company. The Respondent said that the complainant was mistaken in his understanding that two colleagues had been accommodated with shift changes. I was struck by the lack of consideration given to a detailed consideration of the complainant’s request for reasonable accommodation. I appreciate that the Supervisor did consider his allocation of staff /skillset and drew a blank regarding accessing days. I found this to be a subjective analysis which failed to take account of the Complainants Unique Disability. The Complainant had no stated difficulty with the essential tasks of the job, he did have a stated difficulty with evening shift. The Contract of employment outlined that the Complainant must be available to work on a shift pattern. It did not specifically delineate an evening shift exclusively. I cannot therefore in the presence of a two-shift system accept that evening work was an essential work pattern incapable of even a trial re-adjustment for the complainant. The Respondent was, in my opinion obliged to do more than just re-iterate life style changes as they are being within the gift of the complainant himself and excluded from Section 16(3). The Respondent submitted that the Complainant had indicated that he was not prepared to continue the evening shift, however, he worked both this shift an overtime right up to the time of his termination of employment. I appreciate that the Respondent believed that the Plant could not accommodate the complainant on day duty and that by doing so, it would face a disproportionate financial burden. However, given the clear recommendations contained in both Medical Reports, I found it unreasonable that the complainant was not reviewed again by the Occupational Health service once the Respondent identified difficulties with the recommendation for day work. There was an extensive lapse in time from the OHD Report dated April 27 April and June 8 2017 without a follow up consult. I appreciate that it was open to the Complainant to seek a return consult also. I have taken on board that the complainant did endeavour to maintain the Medical involvement in the case when he requested a direct communication issue from the company to his own GP, which was not actioned. I note that the complainant did not avail of sick leave due to fear of financial hardship, nor did he appear to consider the Respondent Disability plan after a continuous absence of 26 weeks. I also note that that the Respondent did not demonstrate I find that the Respondent cannot rely solely on Section 16(1) in this case. The Respondent was obliged to take appropriate measures to assist the complainant in his continuance at work with reasonable accommodation. I have found that the efforts made by the respondent on this occasion fell short of the requirements of Section 16(3). I find that the Respondent did not adequately discharge its obligations under the Act and did discriminate on grounds of Disability when it failed to provide him with appropriate measures to support his continued presence at work in contravention of Section 16(3) of the Act. Claim for Discriminatory Dismissal Both parties accept that the complainant had a disability and dismissal was not in dispute. I accept that the complainant had a Disability as provided for in Section 2 of the Acts. I have considered all evidence, both written and oral. In evaluating the evidence before me, I must first consider whether the complainant has established a prima facie case pursuant to S. 85A of the Acts. The Labor Court has held consistently that the facts from which the occurrence of discrimination may be inferred must be of “sufficient significance” before a prima facie case is established and the burden of proof shifts to the respondent. The Complainant confirmed that he was called to a meeting with the Respondent on 15 June without notice and listened while his confirmation of immediate dismissal was read out in the presence of a work colleague. He told the hearing that he said nothing and went home. The Respondent submitted that the complainant was aware that the goalposts had change in the case following May 25, 2017 where he intimated that evening work was no longer possible for him. I find it necessary to incorporate an extract from the letter, which was not disputed by the Respondent. I appreciate that the Respondent held an honest belief that they had come to the end of the road in terms of making things work with the complainant. “Following medical opinion, your refusal to accept suggestions of lifestyle changes and the fact that you were hired specifically to work the second shift , it has become apparent that the current working relationship in place is not working .We are now left with no other choice but to terminate your contract with Abec has not been an easy decision for the company to make , however to ensure your good health and wellbeing and that the company’s business requirements are fulfilled , we have been left with no other option.” A dismissal due to incapability of an employee is permissible but only where Section 16(3) has been adhered to. I am satisfied that the facts of the dismissal constitute facts from which discrimination can be inferred. There were no performance issues mentioned. The Complainant is covered by the Disability ground, was in receipt of specific treatment by the respondent which amounted to less favourable treatment than would have been afforded to another person in similar circumstances. In Donatella’s Restaurant V a Worker [2005]16 ELR 28, the Labour Court held that fair notice that the question of the complainant’s dismissal for incapacity was to be considered in addition, the complainant was to be allowed an opportunity to influence the decision. In the instant case, the Respondent confirmed that the letter of dismissal was prepared the day before the meeting. The complainant was permitted a colleague to attend the meeting but neither registered a position outside shock. I was struck by the stark evidence submitted by the complainant where he stated that he just left and went home. It was not lost on me that Mr LM was deeply uncomfortable with the message he was asked to communicate. There was no opportunity to appeal. I found the management of the complainant’s dismissal to be careless, coming some two weeks before he attained one years’ service, which would have offered him some protections under the Unfair Dismissals Legislation. I found the Respondent to be intolerant towards the complainant and the move to dismissal was extremely rushed. I could not understand how the Respondent could reasonably interpret that the complainant’s health would benefit from unemployment. I was struck by the omission to rely on the sick leave provisions in the contract of employment. It is of note that the complainant endeavoured to work the evening shift without recourse to sick leave up until the moment of his dismissal on 15 June 2017. The Respondent made extensive legal submissions on Kavanagh, where the Court held that a request for a separate and distinct position veered outside the obligations pertaining to Section 16. The Complainant sought an accommodation off the evening shift. It may not have been long lasting but it was requested to address his stated depression. The facts are distinguished from Kavanagh as the day shift was in existence but deemed unavailable indefinitely, whereas the position sought by Kavanagh was not in existence and would have had to be constructed. I am satisfied that the dismissal was directly related to both the complainant’s disability and a failure in the obligations contained in Section 16(3) of the Act. The Complainant was not provided with due process or fair procedures in accordance with SI 146/2000 and crucially, the respondent had not undertaken adequate enquiry into the complainant’s Medical condition in the 6 weeks before his dismissal or permitted him an opportunity to influence any decision taken. I have found that the complainant was discriminatory dismissed.
|
Decision:Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I decide in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act. I have concluded my investigation and I have found that the Complainant was discriminated against in being denied access to reasonable accommodation on grounds of disability In relation to the claim for Discriminatory Dismissal, I have found the claim to be well founded. I award the cumulative sum of 20,000 euro in compensation for the effects of the discrimination. I also recommend that the Respondent introduces a Policy on Reasonable Accommodation and raises awareness of this Policy with all First Line Managers within 6 weeks of this decision. |
Dated: 13th April 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle
Key Words:
Discriminatory Dismissal, Reasonable Accommodation. |