Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Desiree  Goncalves

Valshan Unlimited

Representatives

  Appeared In Person Day 1 with support person Vicky Wall in attendance from 13.45 hrs.

No Appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant on Day 2 of hearing.

Barry O’ Mahony, BL. instructed by  Sherwin O'Riordan Solicitors LLP

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-00068349-001

28/12/2024

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

CA-00068349-002

28/12/2024

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

CA-00068373-001

30/12/2024

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

CA-00068373-002

30/12/2024

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

CA-00068373-003

30/12/2024

On 28 December 2024, the Complainant, a Lay Litigant and Spa Therapist submitted two sets of complaints of Discrimination, Unequal pay and Victimisation to the WRC.

On 30 December 2024, the Complainant supplemented these complaints with three further complaints of Discrimination on family status ground, Victimisation and contraventions of the Terms of Employment Act, 1994.

On 7 January 2025, the Respondent was placed on notice of both sets of complaints.

 CA-00068373 has been merged with CA-00068349, and all will be heard under Adjudication File Reference No. ADJ-00056185.

The case was first run by a colleague Adjudicator who entered a recusal at hearing in the presence of both Parties on 25 March 2025.

 I understand that the Adjudicator had concluded a decision in ADJ 48914 in November 2024, which involved the same parties.

I received carriage of this case in June 2025 and promptly commenced my investigation.

This was a new Investigation.

 I found a preexisting written submission from the respondent on file, but had some concern regarding the uncoordinated documents on file from the complainant, a recorded Litigant in Person.

There was a pronounced lack of clarity in the latter’s’ extensive documentation on file.

 In the interest of “Equality of Arms “I sought to obtain a more cohesive document to assist in my investigation.

Conscious that the Complainant was introduced to the case as a Lay Litigant (Litigant in person) I was mindful of the UK Equal Treatment Bench Book, updated May 2025

In 2013, a judicial working party chaired by Hickinbottom J summed up the position as follows: “Providing access to justice for litigants in person within the constraints of a system that has been developed on the basis that most litigants will be legally represented poses considerable and unique challenges for the judiciary. Cases will inevitably take more time, during a period of severe pressure on judicial time. However, litigants in person are not in themselves ‘a problem’; the problem lies with a system which has not developed with a focus on unrepresented litigants. We consider it vital that, despite the enormous challenge presented, judges are enabled and empowered to adapt the system to the needs of litigants in person, rather than vice versa.”

The Bench Book refers to Decision Makers at Tribunal Level, such as I operate.

The Parties had been invited to provide submissions to the March 25, 2025, hearing.

On 16 June,2025, I wrote to the Complainant seeking a written submission in preparation for hearing.

I believe it relevant for context and background that I include the letter in full to explain my objectives for equal treatment at that time.

DearDesiree Goncalves,

I am the Adjudicator delegated to hear your case on 16 July in the Waterford Court house.

On my review of the file, I can see a number of submitted loose documents which do not meet the WRC requirement for written submissions in this case. I cannot treat these documents as a written submission.

I write today to request that you submit a written submission on all 5 complaints, which gives.

1 introduction to the claims made in your five complaints. It is not possible to expand these complaints to separate legislation.

2 I require a written account of what remedy you are seeking in each of the five complaints, inclusive of a named comparators pay scale in your claim for equal pay.

3 I ask that you read and consider the Respondent submission and address the points made in your written submission in response. The Respondent has pointed to a lack of detail on some of the complaints and I would be grateful if you could address this.

4 Please include all documents relevant to each of the 5 complaints as I will not accept any documents at hearing.

5 Each party is permitted to bring relevant witnesses to hearing on a voluntary basis. If either party wish to compel a witness, I will take submissions on relevance at hearing, and not before.

6 I urge both parties to read and consider the WRC guide to Employment Equality hearings and the Guide for Lay Litigant on evidence / burden of proof.

7 Both Parties will be requested to give direct evidence and be cross examined on the claims made.

8 Each Party will be expected to provide the hearing with a closing statement which summarises the case as you leave it with the Adjudicator and relying on any case law you may see as relevant / applicable.

I would be grateful for your immediate attention to these requests please, which have been shared with both partiers for completeness.

I look forward to meeting the parties at hearing in a few weeks.

Yours sincerely,

Adjudicator

On the following day, the Complainant made the following response.

Thank you for your letter dated 16th June, which includes guidance from the Head of Adjudication regarding the structure and clarity expected in my submission. I want to assure you that I am working diligently to comply with these parameters. I have already started reorganising my report accordingly and am doing everything I can to ensure it meets the standards requested. Given the time required to make these adjustments properly, I would like to kindly ask: until when do I have the opportunity to submit the updated version? Thank you for your understanding and for the clarification provided. I remain committed to presenting a clear and complete submission as soon as possible.

Over the course of 3 and 4 July 2025, I received a set of documents from the complainant, which prompted my concern on where these had originated as they did not match the undertaking given by the complainant to draw from the WRC guidance document she had received.

These un-coordinated documents ran to 800 pages and were interspersed with datelines a long time prior to the cognisable period of the 5 complaints lodged in December 2024.

On 7 July 2025, I wrote once more to the complainant seeking her cooperation in advance of the hearing.

“I have directed the return of your most recent correspondence on your witness as it appears to have been directed to the Data Commissioner. Your chosen witnesses are welcome at hearing, once relevant to the case.

I have already explained how witnesses will be manged at hearing in my most recent correspondence of 16 June 2025.

To assist in your preparations, I would once more set out that I seek a summary of the facts and dates of your complaints prior to hearing your direct evidence.

I will also require you to identify the author of all documents submitted by you to WRC.

…….

You will appreciate that I do not have any authority under Data Protection and request that you immediately desist from placing complaints meant for Data Protection Commissioner within a WRC submission.

The file in this case is now approaching 2,000 pages.

I will require you to lead evidence in your case on these 5 catalogued complaints prior to hearing evidence from the Respondent.

 I would appreciate your co-operation in providing a written submission which provides a date line on just what has occurred in your case. You will get every opportunity to explain what happened at hearing, but I need a structure of background to these complaints.

Please check the statutory time limits applied to your complaints in advance of the hearing.

The Complainant did not respond to this correspondence.

On 15 July 2025, the Respondent, through Counsel, Barry OMahony BL filed a submission of objection to the “reparative documents created by Artificial Intelligence “furnished by the complainant”.

He termed this as “an abuse of process and unacceptable “and submitted that the documents contained:

“Numerous factual and legal inaccuracies “which were unverifiable.

The Respondent raised a lack of particularisation in the complaints.

I convened the hearing on 16 July 2025 in Waterford Court House in the presence of the Complainant supported by an Interpreter in the Spanish language.

 The Complainants Support person, Ms Vicky Wall was present for the afternoon session from 1.45 hrs. Ms Wall had furnished an email which recollected an earlier 2023 encounter with the respondent but was not called upon to give evidence on this occasion.

 The Complainant confirmed that she was comfortable representing herself.

She had not brought any of the case file documents to hearing and relied on the booklet supplied by the Respondent.

The Complainant did have some handwritten notes which she referred to in her opening statement, which was acceptable at that point, but not during her direct evidence.

The Complainant took the oath to accompany her evidence at hearing.

The Respondent operates a hotel business and was represented by Barry O Mahony BL instructed by Mikaela Mc Skeane and latterly David O’ Riordan.

Witnesses: Ms H, former HR Manager

                      Ms Y Group HR Manager

                      Ms S former Deputy General Manager

Both Ms H and Ms S took the affirmation in preparation for their evidence.

The Complainant told me at hearing that a parallel dispute CA-00067014 had been referred separately to the Labour Court under the Industrial Relations Act 1969. This appears to have centered on a Dispute surrounding a request for investigation.

The Hearing progressed, was adjourned after 6 hours and resumed dates agreed with the Parties for the 13 and 14 November 2024.

It had been my stated preference to resume much earlier, however, the complainant explained that she had familial responsibilities up to the first week in November 2025, following which she planned to resume work.

On 29 July 2025, both parties were invited to the resumed hearing across 1.5 days on 13 and 14 November 2025 in Waterford.

I endeavoured to obtain requested clarification and relevant documents from the complainant in the interim.

Much later, during October 2025, the Complainant filed an application to postpone this resumed hearing, which was processed by a colleague Adjudicator, and was not granted.

The Complainant lodged an appeal. Once more, this was processed by a colleague Adjudicator and was not granted.

The Complainant refused to accept these outcomes and declared that she would not be available for hearing on 13 and 14 November for family reasons as she was on annual leave. I will return to this later.

The Complainant made a last-minute paper application for an adjournment, which I raised at the outset of the resumed hearing. The Respondent opposed the application. I rose for 20 mins to consider all I had read and all I had heard and decided to proceed with the resumed hearing.

I have attached my last correspondence with the Parties for completion.

DearDesiree Goncalves,

I write this afternoon to inform you that I commenced the hearing in this case at 11 am this morning.

You, as the complainant were not in attendance to move the application for my recusal. This application did not progress.

The Spanish Interpreter was in attendance, and I explained that the complainant in the case had not attended.

On foot of the Respondent submission, I requested her to await the 12noon mark, just in case you had been delayed.

I confirmed that the Respondent had received the paper applications for postponement on the cusp of commencement of hearing. I explained that extraordinary circumstances would have to prevail for me to adjourn a hearing at this late juncture.

The Respondent, through Mr O Mahony BL submitted a strident oral submission of objection to any further delay in this case. He argued that the complainant’s application to postpone did not form the basis of extraordinary circumstances and concluded that the Respondent would certainly be prejudiced by further delay to February 2026, which was not associated to any event known to the respondent business.

I inquired whether the Complainant had altered her address with the Respondent to that now relied on? I was informed not.

I queried whether the complainant was still employed at the business and was informed that the complainant was on annual leave at present.

Cases relied on:

Moorehall Disability Services and Marian Jaroslaw Nowak PDD 242, Labour Court

Hosford and Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection [2021] IECA 335

I rose for a short time and communicated my decision on the paper application to postpone the hearing.

I refused the application to postpone the hearing and gave the following reasons.

1 The Complainant had not informed the WRC there was any change to her residential address.

She agreed to the resumption of hearing, scheduled as it was too co incide with the expiration of Parental Leave.

2 The WRC had already conducted two impartial applications to postpone the hearing. These were executed fairly but not accepted.

 No new details have been raised. The Complainant had previously indicated her preparedness to work with the WRC to blend her family responsibilities with her commitment to attend hearings. I observed that was met during the last day of hearing on 16 July 2025.

3 The Complainant has engaged in a “drowning out with documents “approach in the interim from July 16 to November 13, 2025, without engaging with my requests for further particularisation of her claims, detailed in writing.

Her relentless scattergun of criticisms of my management of the case, not met by participation in a recusal application is unhelpful.

4 Article 6, European Convention of Human Rights – Fair determination of Rights.

 ​ In the determination of his/ her civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against her, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

The WRC is seeking to be fair to both parties in organising the November 13 and 14 hearing into the complaints lodged. In recent months, the WRC has been inundated with uncanvassed correspondence not related to my requests for case related facts.

5 I have to conclude that the Complainant has voluntarily absented herself from hearing.

6 The logistics of travelling Italy to Ireland are not insurmountable at this present time.

7 The WRC has expended considerable resources in setting up the resumed hearing in Waterford.

8 The Complainant has not demonstrated her availability for a hearing in February 2026.

I accept that the Respondent would be prejudiced by further delay.

The resumed Hearing in this matter has now concluded in the absence of the Complainant.

I have marked this as a statutory record on the file.

I wish to inform both Parties, that I will now enter my deliberative period in this case and will issue my decision in all 5 complaints in due course.

I have placed an embargo on receiving any further uncanvassed documentation from either party. I must be allowed time and space to consider the facts as they have been presented.

In the event that I identify any documentation outstanding in the case, I will write directly to either party.

I will not accept any further uncanvassed documents in this case and would be grateful for a commitment of adherence to this central request.

Thank you for your input into the case.

Yours sincerely,

Patsy Doyle, Adjudicator

Unfortunately, this correspondence was met with a deluge of electronic based correspondence from the Complainant largely critical of my role as decision maker and copied to external bodies, not participant in the instant case.

As Ms. Goncalves had disregarded my pleas for permitting me space to make a decision in these cases, I moved to request an immediate cessation of any further correspondence from her under the unreasonable service user interaction within the WRC Staff Policy.

This is the first time in 10 years that I have had cause to take this protective measure as I endeavour to uphold the Rule of Law, principles of Supremacy of law, Equality before the law and Accountability to the law.

In the intervening period, the WRC published Guidelines on the use of AI in WRC cases.

I now ask both Parties to read and reflect on the Section which flags the implications of misuse of AI.

 Consequences of Misuse

Submissions containing incorrect or misleading information, whether produced by AI or otherwise, may:

• Undermine your arguments.
• Delay the hearing of your case.
• Require you to make corrections or clarifications.
• In serious cases, could affect how your credibility is viewed.

Ultimately, the decision to accept submissions or other material rests with the Adjudication Officer who will assess whether the material is admissible and relevant to your case. As Judge Simons said in the High Court, “an Adjudication Officer is entitled to ensure that a hearing progresses expeditiously by asking parties to confine themselves to the relevant issues” [3] An Adjudication Officer may be disinclined to admit material that is superfluous, incorrect or misleading as a result of being generated by AI.

Erdogan v WRC [2021] IEHC 348

It will be clear as the parties read further that I had concerns regarding the consequences of AI in this case from a very early stage.

In preparation for all hearings, I value the prehearing submissions from both parties to help me at least try to obtain a flavour of the case before I hear from the people who were directly involved in what occurred in the case.

 In this case, I appreciate the Complainant did endeavour to outline the background and context to the case, however, I would have preferred a more focused account of what she recalled happened in her own words and not intertwined with live complaints to other external bodies.

The Respondent came to hearing with a demonstrable weariness in dealing with the complainant.

All claims were denied and defended.

Artificial Intelligence:

Described in Back to the Future, how well equipped is Irish Employment Equality Law to adapt to Artificial Intelligence? Trinity College Law Review 2020, 23(1) 170-198 AI is aligned as Technologies with the ability to perform tasks that would otherwise require human intelligence, such as visual perception, speech recognition and language translation.

“The machine essentially programmes itself “

AI is highly susceptible to inheriting the biases that it promises to eliminate.

In seeking to address whether the General Data Protection Regulation, given practical effect by the Data Protection Act, 2018, in Ireland, coupled with employment law offers a more effective enforcement mechanism, the author Naomi Foale offered the viewpoint that the principle-based approach in GDPR

 “Ensure that the regulation will not be outpaced by technological advances in the near future ……the regulator is better equipped than courts to grasp the complexity of algorithmic decision making.”

I make this reference as throughout the instant case, submissions sought on the 5 employment rights cases have been cross fertilised by submissions to the Data Protection Commission. Taking in tandem with the AI generated submissions, I found it impossible to isolate the chronology in the claims before me.

Added to this were documents where the complainant was seeking a mortgage and unusually copied the WRC in on these documents which were not reflected in the cognisable period for the claims.

I resolved to listen to the complainant’s evidence at hearing to help in my understanding of the case.

The Complainant was open to explaining that she used AI to organise her case and disputed irrelevant and erroneous commentary.

During the course of this case, Mr. O Mahony made a cross-site analysis with the High Court requirement for submissions and authorities.

He contended that the complainant had completely usurped these requirements when she deposited thousands of pages of documents before the WRC. This brought me back to the Complainants’ own question of whether there is an upper limit in pages for a submission?

While it was a reasonable question and guided by the WRC guidelines for Lay Litigants, the Complainant clearly overloaded the case file with frequently irrelevant and out of time documents which served as a stark juxtaposition to her oral evidence at hearing and her eventual absence at the resumed hearing.

This was the origin of the “drowning by documents “phrase, I utilised in what turned out to be the final day of hearing.

Regrettably, this observation goes to the heart of the case.

I reached out to the complainant in the immediate aftermath of the first hearing day asking if she could introduce her stated advisors to the resumed hearing via representation, but this was not addressed. I can understand that the complainant may have felt vulnerable at hearing.

I found that the complainant preferred the mechanism of AI to assist her state her case.

 Unfortunately, for me at least, the tangential scattergun, smorgasbord approaches and references coupled with   euphemisms formed outside of Europe approaches of this tool were a poor second to human oversight, I have come to expect and anticipate in actual statement and representation during a case. All customers are welcome at WRC.

I wish to illustrate a snapshot extract from the Complainants submission to hearing on Frizelle v New Ross Credit Union [1997] IEHC 37, Flood J, a claim for unfair dismissal, where proportionality was a deciding factor.

The Complainant references:

. Frizelle v New Ross Credit Union [2014] ● Facts: Employee used unauthorized internal documents to prove discrimination. ● Failed: "Evidence obtained despite the employer's concealment is valid if it is relevant to demonstrating discrimination." ● Application to your case: 203 ○ Legitimizes the use of Annex 5 (mail crossed out by the hotel).

This is clearly the AI, unattributed source advising the complainant on an incorrect reference. I make this statement in disappointment rather than judgement.

 I fully appreciate that the complainant is a lay litigant with a strong sense of being unfairly treated at work.

 However, this raises an important consideration.

Who is responsible when a complainant is ill advised in preparation for hearing? Does the Algorithm have the capacity to apologise on whose behalf they erred?

Who is accountable?

My mind is drawn to my colleague Patricia Owens’ findings in the October 2025 case of

Oliveira and Ryanair DAC ADJ 55225, when she stated at first instance:

However, on day 2 of hearing the Complainant acknowledged that he may have used AI and became defensive about his use.

While I’m not particularly concerned about whether the Complainant used AI or not, I am clear that parties making submissions to the WRC have an obligation to ensure that their submissions are relevant and accurate and do not set out to mislead either the other party or the Adjudication Officer.  These submissions were rife with citations that were not relevant, mis-quoted and in many instances, non-existent. The Complainant wasted a considerable amount of time of the Respondent and the Adjudication Officer in seeking to establish the veracity or otherwise of legal citations.

The Complainants attempts to bring in new allegations and claims late in the day and to seek to rely on phantom citations to support his claims can only be described as egregious and an abuse of process.

I found a number of corresponding similarities in both this case and the instant case.

I now wish to press on to consider the instant case.

The Complainant commenced work as a Spa Therapist on 28 May 2021.

She received a weekly pay of €256.00 for 16 hours, which varied. She is a Portuguese national who required translation in the Spanish language.

The complainant exhibited a signed contract of employment in addition to a 2021 staff handbook.

The Complainant also presented some personal details on having her family which has concluded in three live births.

The circumstances of the most recent gestation which concluded on December 30, 2024, have informed this case.

CA-00068349-001 Claim for Discrimination, Family and Gender grounds, Victimisation, Conditions of Employment. Submitted on 28 December 2024 at 21.55 hrs.

This complaint is framed as a complaint against Ms H and is written in the third person “You and Yours “rather than the first person “I.”

Evidence: Poorly managed risk assessment, ignoring key factors related to your pregnancy or wellbeing. Lack of clear responses and follow up to your legitimate queries. Creation of unjustified barriers to your participation in investigations.

Reference followed to Workplace Relations Act 2015 and Maternity Protection Act 1994 and 2004, code of practice on bullying without commensurate framed complaints.

The most recent date of Discrimination is given as 28 December 2024.

The Complaint itself reads as an advisory note from an undeclared advisor rather than an employee with a live workplace complaint.

I probed the complainant on this at hearing.

CA-00068349-002 Claim for Equal Pay on Family and Gender basis.

The Complainant submitted that she had not received equal pay due to her gender and family status, where her named comparator was cited as Ms H, HR Manager.

The narrative of the complaint stated:

“My employer has not paid me or has paid me less than the amount due to me “

This is a typical narrative for a claim taken under Payment of Wages Act, 1991 rather than equal pay and once more, I probed the complainants’ intentions with her at hearing and charted a course of requested ancillary detail.

In her written submissions, the complainant disputed the pay increase she received in July 2024, which consolidated her pay to €16.00 per hour.

She contended that the claim had roots to October 2023 when her pay was €12.50, whereas Ms T, introduced as a Supervisor was earning €13.50. Ms P was listed as earning the same as the complainant. Pay slips were exhibited to 2023.

The Complainant did not outline Ms T or Ms Ps family or gender status and agreed to particularise this claim.

The Complainant made reference in her paper documents to seeking “to extend the computable period prior to July 2024 and after December 30, 2024 “. She did not open this application at hearing.

A Nurse v HSE, DEC E2017-025

O’ Brien v Dunnes Stores EDA 2217 (cross matched to Minister for Justice and Equality and Peter Onyemekeihia by case number, Labour Court)

The Complainant did not adduce direct evidence on this claim.

She presented a pay increase to €16 per hour as the basis of the inequality.

CA-00068373-001 Claim for Discrimination on grounds of family and Victimisation, where most recent date of Discrimination listed as 30 December 2024 at 19.15 hrs.

“I am writing to you to submit a detailed report on the multiple irregularities and misconduct I have faced in relation to a formal complaint of employment discrimination filed against my employer. This document sets out the deliberate delays, bad faith practices and disregard for my pregnancy status which have seriously affected my physical and emotional well-being as well as compromising the integrity of the process.

August 2024 Intimidation

September 2024 Formal complaint, request for external investigation ignored without valid reasons.

October 2024 refused external investigation.

November 2024 date scheduled for investigation, did not proceed.

December 2024 Medical certificate required for me to participate in the investigation or participation in Occupational Health.

I therefore request that the WRC supervise or directly carry out the investigation to ensure impartiality and speed in the process.”

CA-00068373-002 Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

The Complainant submitted that she had not been provided with a reasoned reply to her request for more predictable and secure working conditions within one month of her request.

I have found it relevant to include the narrative of the complaint in this complaint as it is not a typical complaint written in the first person i.e. “I.”

“If you have repeatedly requested safer and more predictable working conditions due to Discrimination and lack of action in the investigation process, and you did not receive a reasoned response within an appropriate time frame, this option may be appropriate “

The Complainant did not adduce evidence in this claim.

CA-00068373-003 Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994.

The Complainant outlined that she had been penalised or threatened with penalisation for giving evidence in any proceedings or giving notice of my intention of doing so under the Terms of Employment (Information), 1994

This complaint was addressed to the WRC and based on a complaint of penalisation and unequal treatment in the employment investigation process.

1 unjustified delay in investigation from complaint in October 2024

2 lacks support and reasonable accommodation for my pregnancy status.

3 Evasiveness and refusal to take key actions.

4 Indirect penalties for exercising my rights.

The Complainant did not adduce evidence in this claim.

At hearing the Complainant confirmed that she wished to avail of Interpretation to the Spanish language on demand. This was facilitated.

However, the translation soon moved to “word for word “translation during the first day of hearing.

I endeavoured to agree the contents of the complaint’s forms of 28 and 30 December 2024.

The Complainant had a clear difficulty participating in this process. She relied on word for word translation during this time.

The Complainant was not in a position to “nett the issues “as she submitted that.

 “Violations exist and cannot be reduced “

She exhibited a high level of hostility towards the respondent representatives.

I explained the burden of Proof required to both Parties in all 5 complaints.

Eventually the complaint forms were agreed in content.

The Complainant agreed to provide a viable comparator in her claim for equal pay. She also agreed to particularise the claims made under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994.

I have invested a considerable period of time seeking a response to this request for ancillary detail. I have been unsuccessful.

Evidence of the Complainant, under oath.CA-00068349-001 and CA-00068373-001

The Complainant outlined a history of her feelings of intense isolation from her employer, the Respondent Hotel. This has led to her penalisation.

She gave birth to her baby on 1 January 2025, following a period of sick leave.

She is due back to work in November,2025   following a period of Parental Leave.

On 21 August 2024, in the course of a back to work meeting, the complainant informed Ms H, HR Manager, that she was pregnant. She planned a risk assessment to accompany her return to work. She had not deemed it essential that she be present and had requested the meeting on zoom. She eventually accepted the 21 August 2024 date. The meeting lasted 30 minutes.

Ms H asked her how she felt? Ms Goncalves confirmed that she felt a residue from the live case at WRC and she had persevered to overcome the case. A note taker was present.

She told Ms H she was pregnant. Ms H left the room. She returned and read out a document. The Complainant asked to be heard and respected.

On 27 August 2024, she met with Ms H and her new Boss, Ms F   for 45-50 mins. She was informed that her salary was increasing to €16 ph., and she requested 14 days leave.

Ms Goncalves had reservations surrounding the appropriateness of Ms H using her laptop to make notes   and she asked if she could record the meeting? She told the hearing that she felt intimidated and feared bad consequences. She was not permitted to record the meeting as Ms H told her she felt uncomfortable.

The Complainant told the hearing, she felt intimidated at this point.

The document prepared by Ms H was scanned to her, and she was invited to open and add to it.

When the Complainant was leaving the meeting room, she observed that the CC TV came on. She believed that she was being monitored.

On 2 September 2024, the Complainant wrote to Ms H and registered her unease about her.

1 intimidation at the meeting

2 3 different salary rates

3 Use of Camera without consent

Ms H had not reflected Ms Goncalves request to record the meeting in her summary of the meeting.

The complainant submitted she was protecting her privacy rights. She requested a form on which to register “my intimidation “. She did not receive a response on her request surrounding her pay.

The Complainant submitted that she had been subjected to violations of Discrimination and condescending behaviour by the Respondents Managers.

She contended that she had been ignored by Ms H and the General Manager, Mr B.

The Complainant followed up her concerns on 7, 12 and 15 September 2024. A modification of the risk assessment occurred on 17 September as the complainant’s level of intimidation had been omitted.

I intervened at this point to seek to link the instances of Discrimination relied on to date of occurrence.

The Complainant submitted that her stated concerns were not investigated by the Respondent, who minimised what occurred for her.

She tried to get Mr B to listen to her to record her intimidation and place a letter on file. Mr B used the same words as Ms H.

The Complainant raised a dispute with the WRC during October 2024 under the Industrial Relations Act and sought an investigation on her demand for an investigation on her workplace issues.

The Employer refused to participate, and the Complainant told the hearing that she had not progressed this dispute to the Labour Court. She subsequently varied that position.

The Respondent sought to undertake a local investigation, which the complainant agreed to, but the Respondent delayed the process.

The Complainant submitted that she was ready to participate in an external investigation. As she was close to giving birth, she wanted closure on that process for her baby.

Her petitions were avoided by the Respondent, and she was worried.

She commenced sick leave while 35 weeks pregnant on 26 November 2024 and was cut off from the business through sick leave followed by maternity leave until Ms H contacted her on 2 January 2025

On 4 December 2024, Mr B informed the Complainant that the planned investigation would not proceed during her sick leave.

She was uncomfortable with that pronouncement, which she viewed as unjust and asked “Is that right? “And asked him to declare “what was the legal basis for his decision? “

On 9 December 2024, Mr B told her that there was no legal basis for withholding the investigation.

“If I wanted to participate, I would have to produce a fit to work certificate “She read from the email which recorded “fit to engage “

When asked to identify the Discriminatory actions which had occurred on 28 December and 30 December 2024, the complainant replied none as these were the dates that she submitted the complaints to the WRC.

She submitted that the first complaint was directed at Ms H. The second to Mr B.

Ms Goncalves summarised that she had been prevented from recording the conversation which ensued during the August 27 meeting on the Risk assessment. The violations endured over August – November 2024.

The Complainant was unable to expand on her complaint for victimisation. She did state that she had been punished for her present complaint and the management were not impartial but could not remember facts.

She added that she had not received a pay slip and the investigation “has never started “.

During cross examination, Counsel, Mr O’ Mahony checked the documents submitted in the case.

He asked Ms Goncalves if she accepted that Ms H had pronounced that she was uncomfortable in being asked about recording the meeting on August 27, 2024? The complainant answered yes but denied that it was perfectly valid for Ms H to object as the complainant was uneasy at that time awaiting the outcome of her earlier claim for Discrimination.

Ms Goncalves accepted that she was provided with minutes on conclusion of that meeting, which she was not compelled to sign, but was permitted to augment.

The Complainant confirmed reception of the staff handbook of 2021. She stated that she had requested CC TV footage of the August 27 meeting and received a response from Ms H dated September 5.

In response to Counsels questions, she stated that she could not recall being informed that she did not hold a right to record meetings on 19 September.

When Counsel was exploring this disputed authority, the Complainant confirmed that she had “Called FLAC and they told me that I had a right to record “

The Complainant disputed the allegation from Counsel that she had continued to “bombard “when her questions had been addressed and answered. The Complainant relied on “her feelings “as justification for these responses.

Ms Goncalves accepted that the Risk Assessment had been modified on agreement.

She went on to submit that she had agreed to the respondent running an investigation “with a minimum of guarantees “She explained that she had previously experienced Discrimination and the Respondent had only proposed an investigation after she had contacted the WRC.

Mr B had not explained why the investigation was precluded during sick leave.

When she was approached for medical proof of fitness to engage, she told Mr B that she was distressed.

She disputed that the investigation could not have been started without her as Ms H and her manager were available.

She explained her practice of copying documents received prior to translation and before she responded.

By 26 December 2024, the Complainant stated she was worried and disputed that her email of 23.18 hrs to Mr B was an extraordinary unreasonable action where she sought a demand over Christmas season.

She confirmed that she had received the email of 28 December 2024.

Ms Goncalves confirmed that she had forwarded her complaint to the WRC to protect the occurrences within the six months.

She accepted that Ms Dominika OSullivan was -proposed to conduct the investigation in January 2025, where she asked for guarantees.

In redirect, the complainant repeated that Mr B had told her that “I had to have a cert for return to work “otherwise she could not engage in the investigation.

In clarifications, the complainant pointed to her being ignored by her employer, receiving evasive responses to her request and a denial of a CC TV record as occurrences of Discrimination.

She confirmed that she had relied on AI to “organise “her submissions but AI had not changed or disturbed the violations she had experienced.

She clarified that she had refused to attend Occupational Health as it was part of ARAG, the Respondent entity.

She confirmed that she had shared details of her newborn baby on 5 January 2025, and parental leave followed maternity leave to 4 November 2025.

The Complainant did not make an appearance for the resumed hearing.

The Respondent operates a Hotel Group. It was common case that the complainant had been employed there since May 2021.

The Respondent accepted that the Complainant had recovered a remedy of compensation from a previous WRC case decided in November 2024.

All 5 claims made were strongly refuted. The Respondent contended that the complainant had been treated fairly and respectfully, which was in complete contrast to the assertions of the complainant.

Mr O Mahony sought dismissal of the claims as an abuse of process.

CA-00068349-001   Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act 1998

The Complainant proceeded on Maternity Leave on April 1, 2024, and returned to work in late August 2024. Her submitted medical cert of 21 August 2024 indicated that she was 20 weeks pregnant, fit for work in her current role and seeking.

“Her current pregnancy be taken into account in terms of the types of duties she undertakes, and the amount of rest breaks she requires “

A meeting to undertake a joint risk assessment followed on 27 August 2024, and the party’s reached agreement in response to the medical direction.

The Complainant deviated from this programme when she subsequently made a latter-day issue of being refused an opportunity to record the meeting and her observation that the meeting fell within the scope of CC TV, albeit that CC TV footage had no audio facility.

The completed Risk Assessment was issued on the same day.

This prompted an abundance of email correspondence from the complainant managed by the respondents Ms H.

In the main, the complainant sought to augment the record of risk assessment by insertion of her stated wish that her request to tape the meeting was refused and proceeded to open an email thread on access to criteria for salary increases and annual leave.

By 19 September 2025, the Complainant submitted the following to the Respondent.

“I demand that a document be prepared and added to my file stating that I stated I felt unsafe, uncomfortable and disrespected, following the prohibition and intimidation on your part by not allowing me to record the conversation, even though I was fully within my right to do so “

The Respondent requested that I infer a defiance rather than a vulnerability in this exchange.

Ms H deferred to Mr B, General Manager from October 2024 onwards.

Mr B commissioned a formal investigation in which, following delays, the complainant eventually agreed to participate.

The Complainant commenced on sick leave on 26 November 2024 and did not return to work before the birth of her baby late December 2024.

As the complainant had declared that she was medically unfit for work, the Respondent sought a medical certificate of “fitness to participate in the investigation “None was forthcoming.

The Complainant continued to level emails which took issue with the progression of events.

The Respondent, through Mr B acted on December 20, 2024

“ ….. the complainant was offered the opportunity to attend an Occupational Health appointment to confirm whether or not she was fit to engage in the investigation process “

The Complainant placed a demand for a response on issues already raised by her on Christmas Eve.

She did not provide medical certificate of fitness to engage or attend occupational health department.

The Complainant then lodged the instant complaints on 28-30 December 2024.

The Respondent submitted that these complaints are at one with each other.

The Respondent subsequently offered an independent Investigation by a HR Practitioner, which the complainant has not accepted.

The Respondent took issue with the “repetitive, aggressive, and disruptive emails “which followed from the complainant during the first quarter of 2025.

The Respondent concluded that the complaints are misconceived and without merit.

Employment Equality Cases:

Counsel called on the WRC to apply the burden of proof in Southern Health Board v Mitchell [2001] 1 ELR 201,

“… primary facts on which they rely in seeking to raise the presumption of unlawful discrimination “

 In reflecting on the application of Valpeters v Melbury Developments EDA 0917, Counsel read into the record at hearing

“…. Such an inference (Discrimination) could only be drawn if there was evidence of some weight from which it could be concluded that persons of a different race or nationality were or would be treated more favourably. All that has been pro offered in support of that contention is a mere assertion unsupported by any evidence “

 Counsel for the Respondent, Mr O Mahony BL argued that there was a clear overlap in the Employment Equality complaints of 28 and 30 December 2024 and addressed the hearing that the complainant was obliged under the rule in Henderson v Henderson to elect for a single complaint. The complainant refused that plea.

The Respondent argued that all 5 complaints intertwined.

CA-00068349 -002 Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

Section 7 Equal Pay

The Respondent has rejected this claim as “fundamentally misconceived “.

All the complainants’ colleagues are female and “have a similar family status to the complainant “

She lacks the grounds to proceed.

Mr O Mahony went on to submit that the claim with regard to equal pay had not been particularised and was void of an accurate comparator. Kenny v Dept of Justice Equality and Law Reform [2014] IEHC 11.

The insertion of Ms H as the comparator was erroneous on the complainant behalf. He argued the claim was misconceived and should be dismissed.

The Complainant was provided with a number of pay increases in line with market forces and she was not discriminated against on pay.

The Complainant has not given evidence on like work or work of equal value.

CA-00068373-001 Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act 199

The Complainant had not identified a comparator on family or gender status. Kenny v Dept of Justice Equality and Law Reform [2014] IEHC 11

Trony v Waterford Ledc CLG ADJ 50869

Mr O Mahony contended the complainant had not met the test for Victimisation in Public Service Appointments v Roddy EDA 1019

He submitted that the complainant had neglected to particularise her claim for harassment on gender or family grounds.

He went on to make strident submissions that the documents filed by the complainant prehearing were generated by AI and were not admissible in the case. These documents contained clear mistakes and raised credibility issues on the complainant’s side.

He summarised that the respondent had “been bombarded by repeated dossiers which now stood at 1,000s of pages without any details on key claims such as the last complaint of penalisation”.

The Complainant was obliged to particularise her complaints, many of which had overlapped with complaints to Data Protection and ought to be dismissed.

He emphasised that the Adjudicator had no jurisdiction to hear adjunct complaints relating to events which postdated the “lodgement of respective complaints.”

Outline:

Mr O Mahony opened the case by declaring that the claims before the WRC were “spurious and without merit “

He clarified that the context of the 21 August 2024 meeting, relied on by the complainant was a back to work meeting, where the complainant informed the respondent, she was pregnant. The Company engaged in a risk assessment with the complainant on 27 August 2024.

What followed, was a campaign of repeated correspondence from the complainant with repetitive questions which endured to December 2024 and was “unacceptable. “

Ms H had objected to the complainants request to record the 27 August meeting. The complainant became irritable and took issue with the laptop used and CC TV, in spite of a company policy detailed in the staff handbook.

Ms H eventually gave way to the General Manager, Mr Bs’ management of the issue. He launched an official investigation into the complainants’ allegations of intimidation and inappropriate conduct.

The Complainant bombarded the business with correspondence before going on sick leave in November 2024. She made parallel approaches to the Data Protection Commissioner.

He argued that the complainant was not on the company pay roll at the time both complaints were lodged. This was disputed by the complainant.

CA-00068373-002   Section 7 of Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994, Section 6 F

The Respondent denied that the complainant had requested predictable and secure working conditions within the meaning of the Act at any time during her employment.

The complaint is misconceived and must fail.

CA-00068373-003 Section 7 of Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994, section 6 C

Protection against penalisation

He denied that the complainant had ever made an application for more predictable working, and she had not encapsulated just how she had been penalised in her final claim.

He emphasised the statutory limitation period for both sets of complaints as the preceding 6 months.

Following the Complainants direct evidence, cross examination and clarifications, Counsel for the Respondent, Mr O Mahony made an application for a Direction the complaints as the complainant had not proved the facts necessary for a finding of Discrimination.

I canvassed the Parties on the Labour Court case of

Teagasc and Paula Reid EDA 2437, where the Labour Court had refused the application for Direction mid hearing and cross examination of the complainants’ witnesses proceeded.

Mr O Mahony, distinguished the case and sought to submit a Supreme Court authority.

Evidence of Ms H, Former Human Resource Manager:

Ms H worked in a number of roles at the hotel, latterly for 3 years as Human Resource Manager 2021-March 2025.

She described a challenging employment relationship between her and the complainant, which caused her to feel diminished in her role and served as a strong contributing factor for her leaving the business when she did.

She recalled meeting the complainant on her return to work, in place of a Line manager / Spa Manager on August 21, 2024.

The Complainant informed her that she was pregnant and together they discussed formulating a risk assessment to assist her in her work.

Another meeting was planned for 27 August in the North Pavilion to ensure a

 “Comfortable experience “

for the complainant.

Ms H and the regional manager were there first and offered the complainant coffee on arrival.

The Complainant requested to record the meeting. Ms H refused saying she was not comfortable to be recorded. She presumed this was accepted by the Complainant as they went on to discuss.

Hours of Work

New Uniforms

Treatments

Parking

Commitment to meet again.

She acknowledged that she recorded notes on her laptop and left the room briefly to scan these notes to the Complainant, who read them and indicated that she was happy with these.

Ms H recalled the meeting being successful and a manifestation of a

 “Welcome back in “

for Ms Goncalves.

Having regard for the Complainants email of 2 September 2025, Ms H remarked that she had engaged with her concerns and furnished a positive response.

She disputed the allegation of Discrimination on 19 September.

“I wanted no hesitation on her return to work “as the complainant had been willing to accept the outcome of 27 August discussions.

She denied intimidation.

She also added that if the complainant had made an audio recording an anchor for the meeting, she would have stopped the meeting, but she had agreed to everything and none of the issues subsequently raised were flagged as stumbling blocks for her return to work.

Ms H concluded that the issues raised surrounding the CC TV “did not make sense “as Ms Goncalves knew that the CC TV was for security, which was detailed in the staff handbook.

She told the hearing that she formed the view that Ms Goncalves wanted to accumulate evidence to build a case to the WRC.

In further clarifications, Ms H  submitted that she was frightened when she had cause to meet the complainant due to “so many demands “Her communication was relentless and one sided.

She told the hearing that the Complainant refused to meet with her on a 1:1 basis which made an early resolution of her issues challenging.

She was struck by the disparity in her oral discourse and the sophisticated written responses which followed.

These displayed a different level of English to what the complainant demonstrated in her presence.

I asked Ms H if she had ever been asked before by the Complainant to audio record a meeting? Ms H replied that she had agreed to being recorded on 21 August, where a scribe was present.

The Hotel had not specifically heralded an awareness of data protection, outside of the handbook.

In redirect, Ms H repeated that she felt that the complainant was actively building a case for the WRC from her return to work in August 2024, but she did not have grounds for this. She did not convey a positive disposition in seeking to resolve anything in house and seemed intent on externalising any preferred resolution.

Ms H was unnerved by this contrary positioning.

In conclusion, Mr Mahony repeated that the complainant had not attended the second day of scheduled hearing to prosecute her case. He added that Ms Goncalves had not reached the prima facie test in her claims for Discrimination.

He sought recognition of the documents attributed to both Ms H and Mr B as correspondence which reflected.

 “a monumental effort “

to resolve all issues identified by the complainant.”

 He also sought application of Section 13 Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provision Act 2020.

He concluded that the evidence pro offered by the complainant to date had lacked credibility and the copious documentation had been an intentional distraction from the genuine efforts by the respondent.

He sought a dismissal of all 5 claims.

He closed by once more reflecting on the pressure placed on the respondent by the complainant which was unjustified and contrary to good staff relations.

He summarised a disproportionate wielding of unfounded allegations and demands by the complainant which had caused a high level of exasperation within the respondent up to including forming the basis for Ms H to leave her employment.

Cases referred to:

Andrew Loughran v Daffodil Care Services Unlimited Company ADJ 40733 June 2024

“ .. the complainant is attempting to revive his grievances which have been adequately ventilated …”

I have been directed to decide on the five complaints listed above. In reaching my decisions, I have had regard for all written submissions canvassed by the WRC. I have also had regard for all oral submissions alongside the evidence of

Ms Desiree Goncalves, the Complainant

Ms H, Human Resource Manager

I did endeavour to compel the attendance of Mr B as a relevant witness, whose appearance was requested by both parties. Mr B was unwilling to attend, despite giving a commitment to assist the Respondent in correspondence to the WRC from June 2025.

As the resumed hearing drew closer and the complainant’s commitment to attend the resumed hearing began to wane, Mr B also opposed his sub poena and has made extensive submissions to the WRC.

From my desk top review of the paperwork, I have formed an opinion that Mr B may not have been aware of the first Adjudicators recusal in March 2025 followed by my replacement in June 2025.

Ultimately, I decided that compelling Mr B amidst the breadth of uncertainty was not necessary.

 I withdrew the sub poena.

Mr B, who no longer works at the business, did not attend the resumed hearing on November 13, 2025.

Findings:

In reaching findings in this case, I have drawn from Brennan v Board of Management Scoil Mhuire Agus Iosaf Junior School [ 2020] 31 ELR 21

I have reviewed all documents and have considered the evidence adduced albeit from just two participants.

The court or decision-maker must be alert to the possibility of unconscious or inadvertent discrimination and mere denials of a discriminatory motive, in the absence of independent corroboration, must be approached with caution. Nevins, Murphy, Flood v Portroe Stevedores Limited [2005] E.L.R. 282 referred to.

Jurisdiction:

My Jurisdiction is derived from:

CA-00068349-001   Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act 1998

Section 6 and Section 8

Section 14 Harassment

Section 74(2) Victimisation

CA-00068349 -002 Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

Section 7 Equal Pay

CA-00068373-001 Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act 1998

Section 6 and 8

Section 74(2) Victimisation

And Section 5 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994.CA-00068373-002/003

The complainant held a variable hours Monday to Sunday contract of employment.

At the conclusion of first day of hearing, I wrote to the Parties in the following record.

I write to both Parties on conclusion of yesterday’s hearing at Waterford Court house 10 am to 5pm, July 16, 2025.

To summarise:

1       The case has been opened in all 5 complaints.

2       The Complainant has completed her direct evidence in CA-00068349-001 and CA-00068373-001, both of her claims under employment equality.

3       Counsel for the Respondent, Mr O Mahony has concluded his cross examination of Ms Goncalves on both of her claims under employment equality.

4       Evidence is awaited from the Respondent witnesses on these claims. Mr OMahony has submitted his contention that he may not lead witnesses as he has maintained the complainant may not have satisfied the necessary burden of proof.

5       I have stated that I would like to hear from these witnesses for the purposes of my investigation.

6       I directed continuance, citing:

Teagasc and Paula Reid ~EDA 2437, at the Labour Court.

I have identified the need to hear from Mr B and now seek a readily identified address as contact please. (Respondent, please)

I have acceded to the Respondent request that Ms H be compelled to attend on the resumed dates in November and now seek a readily identified address as contact please. (Respondent, please)

7       The complaints as listed are the sole complaints for decision and I have no jurisdiction under GDPR or Maternity Protection legislation.

8       I have directed the complainant to particularise her claims as a matter of urgency.

CA-00068349-002      I require the complainant to Identify of a comparator of different gender and family status, who is not Ms H. I need a one-page submission on this claim with a comparative analysis of both the complainant and her chosen comparator in accordance with Section 7 of the Act, as discussed at hearing.

CA-00068373-002    I require the single page document relied on by the complainant in seeking more predictable and secure working conditions.

This is an essential requirement to help me make a decision in this case. I explained that I would revisit this claim at the resumed hearing.

CA-00068373-003 I require an identified date on which the complainant took a protected action under the Act and an identified date of penalisation.

I require responses in all three requests within 7 days of today, 24 July 2025, which will then be shared with the respondent for comment, if any.

This is an essential requirement to help me make a decision in this case. I explained that I would revisit this claim at the resumed hearing.

I also request that the Complainant brings her submitted documents to hearing on the next occasion to aid the process.

I have contacted the scheduling team at WRC and have requested a 1.5-day hearing to commence at noon on 13 November 2025 and 9.30 am on 14 November 2025.  It is essential that this hearing is conducted in person to maximise the potential for a clear comprehension. I have vetoed the request made by the complainant for recourse to a remote hearing.

My preference is that we resume on the Respondents witnesses in both employment equality cases, with an opportunity for cross examination by Ms Goncalves.

I will then finalise the three remaining cases, if they remain live.

Thank you all for your work yesterday and I will see both Parties again with an Interpreter present at the resumed hearing.

On the following day, I received a statement of complaint from the Complainant which, while not specifically directed to me, did not address any of my post hearing requirements and was addressed to.

“Whom it concerns at Post Registration Unit “

 The Complainant stated that she had difficulty with the hearing.

………

I had consulted Citizens Information, FLAC, the Legal Aid Board, and the South Law Centre. My submission was reviewed by a professional at Cork Law Centre. It was not improvised or emotional— as I was made to feel—but built with care and responsibility. 5 Having previously been a victim of discrimination by the same employer, as officially recognized by a WRC ruling in my favor, I approached this new hearing expecting respect and sensitivity. What I experienced instead was deeply disheartening. The tone and dynamics of the hearing overwhelmingly favored the hotel’s narrative, without a balanced analysis. Taken together, these elements left me with the bitter impression of being mocked, distrusted, and treated as though my claims were frivolous or ill-intentioned. The hearing did not allow me to present the full scope of the workplace violations I suffered—instead, it made me feel punished for trying to assert my rights. I sincerely hope this communication will be received with the seriousness and sensitivity it deserves. My only intention is to ensure that the process continues fairly and equitably, with all the guarantees that the law and the WRC aim to provide for those who seek its protection. I truly hope I can continue this process in an environment where my participation is respected, and my arguments are heard without prejudice.

The Respondent filed a response dated July 23, 2025, and countered the Complainants viewpoint:

Please note that we firmly reject the allegations which have been levelled against us by the Complainant, which we consider to be completely unwarranted. There was no improper behaviour towards the Complainant at any stage, and the hearing was fair, impartial, and respectful throughout. We wish to state that the Complainant was provided with considerable leniency and support during the hearing, including a significant degree of assistance from the Adjudication Officer. She was provided with multiple opportunities to present her case in full and point to the necessary evidence in support of her claims against the Respondent. We strongly refute the Complainant’s allegations that we engaged in any behaviour that could be described as “mocking” or “laughing” while the Complainant was speaking. These claims are entirely untrue. It is important to note that we have a duty to the Respondent as their legal representatives, and we are fully entitled to defend/challenge the Complainant’s claims and highlight the perceived weaknesses in her case, as necessary. Our conduct can only be described as appropriate, professional, and entirely within the remit of our duty to the Respondent. As the allegations presented by the Complainant below do not accurately reflect what transpired during the hearing, we consider same to be completely unfounded and we therefore request that they are withdrawn immediately.

I responded to these letters and requested the Complainants cooperation in the agreed plan from Day 1 of the hearing.

As the Adjudicator assigned to hear your case and formulate a decision in 5 live complaints, I have received a copy of your email of 18 July 2025, which post-dated my email of earlier that morning, where I outlined the next steps in this case for the attention of both parties.

This approach was agreed with all presents at the conclusion of day 1 of hearing.

This email will be shared with the Respondent for their file.

As I am in the process of booking resumed dates to conclude your case, I ask that you please work with this agreed plan and let me have the requested responses no later than the end of this week.

In relation to your stated difficulties with the hearing, I cannot communicate a response outside a hearing room and in the absence of the respondent.

I am bound to protect the integrity of the hearing in this case as an impartial investigator.

I will afford you an opportunity to raise whatever points you have on this case at the commencement of the resumed hearing on 13 November next. I will respond at that point.

You will recall this date was delayed as you explained you did not have availability prior to November 4, 2025, due to family commitments. I accepted that reason.

Both Parties were issued invitations to attend the resumed hearing in notifications dated 29 July 2025.

As I was unable to secure a response from the complainant to my request for documents to assist my investigation, I wrote once more to both parties on 31 July.

I outlined that I had not received my requested response from the complainant, and the respondent was also seeking to depart from the agreed resumption plan.

I explained that as the complainants had confirmed her reliance on AI to compile her submissions to the WRC, I had concerns regarding the apparent lack of human oversight, which I sought to remedy through oral evidence.

I requested the Complainant consider availing of representation.

I requested a cessation of submission of uncanvassed documents.

I also advised the parties there was scope for informal resolution of the matter.

I expressed an interest in hearing from Mr B at the resumed hearing and gave August 22, 2025, as the window for response.

I also sought addresses as contact points.

I asked the parties to reflect on the case:

Kiely v Minister for Social Welfare [1977] 1 IR 267, 281

"Of one thing I feel certain, that natural justice is not observed if the scales of justice are tilted against one side all through the proceedings. Audi alteram partem means that both sides must be fairly heard. That is not done if one side is allowed to send in his evidence in writing, free from the truth eliciting process of a confrontation which is inherent in an oral hearing, while his opponent is compelled to run the gauntlet of oral examination and cross-examination.  The dispensation of justice, in order to achieve its end, must be even handed in form as well as content.”

CA-00068349-001   Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act 1998

On 28 December 2024, the Complainant submitted that in the course of her employment she had been discriminated against on gender and family grounds, was harassed and victimised.

The Complainant was unwilling to place a finite time frame on the associated events as she carried and demonstrated a deep unease with her employer in relation to how her sequential pregnancies were historically managed at the business.

She had a clear difficulty in understanding statutory time limits and seemed at times to have preferential reliance on her own time limits rather than the statutory imposed time limits. I say this as the documentation submitted by Ms Goncalves was a blend of pre-28 December 2024 and post 28 December 2024. The Complainant included email correspondence which postdated her claims made which placed the Respondent at a zero tolerance of being in receipt of further correspondence from her. I saw a reference to a suggestion of disciplinary action if the complainant did not cease and desist in that regard. No evidence was adduced that the complainant was disciplined.

I was interested in the flurry of emails the complainant directed to the hotel during 28 December purporting to give two more days for a response to illicit in her queries. However, by 10 pm on that evening the first claims CA-00068349-001 and 002 were lodged with the WRC.

There is no dispute that the WRC made an award of compensation to the complainant in respect of Discrimination during Pregnancy dated November 2024 within this employer. ADJ 48914.

Pregnancy is a protected period for an employee within Employment Law in Ireland.

In considering the facts of this case, as presented, I have considered the Law in this area of high protection.

Trailer Care holdings ltd v Deborah Healy EDA 128, at the Labour Court draws on the seminal case of:

Dekker v Stichting Vormingcentrum voor Junge Volwassenen [1990] ECR 1-3841, C-177/88

 the Court of Justice of the European Union (formally the ECJ) has made it clear that since pregnancy is a uniquely female condition any adverse treatment of a woman on grounds of pregnancy is direct discrimination on ground of her sex. 

Equality on grounds of gender is now expressly guaranteed by Article 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 

The jurisprudential principle that discrimination on grounds of pregnancy constitutes direct discrimination on grounds of sex is now codified in Directive 2006/54/EC on the Principle of Equal Treatment of Men and Women (the Recast Directive)

The Court is also satisfied that the Respondent displayed a total lack of consideration for the Complainant physical condition during what it knew was a difficult pregnancy. It failed to undertake any meaningful risk assessment or to discuss with her adjustments that could be made in the duties that she was required to undertaken or in the physical environment in which she was required to work.

I find Healy is distinguished from the instant case.

It was clear to me that the complainant sought to personalise this complaint against Ms H alone. She named this complaint as being against Ms H and reserved CA-00068349-002 for Mr B.

She wrote her report in the third person and inserted what seemed to me to be an advisory note prompted by AI.

In short, the complainant submitted that during a risk assessment meeting to support her 20-week gestation, she was denied an opportunity to record this meeting.

I accept that the first back to work meeting of August 21 meeting was recorded by the Complainant. Ms H did not want to repeat this on August 27, 2024, and told the complainant this.

 Furthermore, the complainant, Ms Goncalves was dissatisfied that the refusal to record was not incorporated on the risk assessment or associated documentation.

She supplemented this on 2 September 2024 when she sought this inclusion, the scope of the CC TV present, and her own opportunity to take advantage of the email to query.

1 employment status of a previous line manager

2 reasons for salary increases.

3 access to and allocation of holidays

Ms Goncalves submitted that she experienced a manipulation of her risk assessment with irregularities. I did not find proof of this.

 Instead, I found a very comprehensive risk assessment, which was well documented and most important, shared with the complainant. It bore no resemblance to the facts in Healy.

I accept Ms H evidence that she was completely overwhelmed by the complainant’s reliance on email correspondence, while simultaneously refusing to sit down and discuss the follow up to the risk assessment.

I find that this preference for email unitary correspondence goes to the very heart of this case.

The Complainant referred being repeatedly ignored by Ms H who escalated the case management to Mr B by October 2024.

 I found that to be to be a reasonable and proportionate action as she needed the input of a Senior Manager to manage the complainant’s meandering demands which had overwhelmed and defeated her. Ms H demonstrated a clear fear of the complainant. This caused me some concern, and I monitored this carefully.

I found a repeated fragility in Ms H as she spelled out her objectives for seeking to support the complainant in her return to work, only to be disregarded and diverted to issues outside of the complainants’ pregnancy, which for her were unresolved.

Above all, I was struck by Ms H evidence at hearing, when she contended that Ms Goncalves began to build another case to the WRC on foot of the risk assessment in August 2024.

She was credible on this point as she repeated the marked differential in how the complainant presented at meetings to how she followed up these meetings on paper as a veritable alter ego.

I found that the complainant avoided participation in an internal investigation by active delay.

She committed to participation in the investigation and said she needed this but did not participate.

I have great difficulty with her reasoning offered.

 Firstly, I understand that the complainant was well advanced in her pregnancy by November 2024 and her certificate of November 26, 2024, outlined that she was unfit for college /work. It did not delineate that she was either fit or unfit for a workplace investigation. The Complainant had committed to forwarding medical certificate.

At the centre of the complainant’s case is that she was requested to furnish a medical certificate while pregnant to confirm her fitness to engage in a workplace investigation, which she had expressly requested. She was also requested to participate in an occupational health review to confirm that fitness. The Complainant places these for investigation as repeated acts of Discrimination.

Her reason for non-participation here was the proximity of ARAG, the Respondents Insurer to Occupational Health.

 For me, this was not a cogent or credible reason.

The Complainant was unable to give an account of discriminatory act on 28 December 2024. She replied this was the date of the complaint to the WRC.

The Complainant has not demonstrated just how “omissions and negligence “have had an adverse impact on her emotional and professional wellbeing “

 She did not exhibit a medical report or give evidence to that end.

The Complainant has not demonstrated how a lack of action and transparency have created a hostile and unfavourable environment for her as an employee.

For me, these must therefore remain in the assertion category and cannot be elevated to facts for which I have probed deeply in this case.

 Melbury Developments Ltd and Valpeters [2010] 21 ELR 64

I would have liked to have met Mr B as his email correspondence, while not probative was, in my view consistent and solution focussed.

Mr O Mahony

 sought the application of Section 13, Civil Law, and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provision Act 2020

 on Admissibility of business records in the absence of Mr B at hearing, that Ms B and Ms H had made “monumental efforts “to engage with the complainant towards resolution of her complaints.

 Business records in document form presumed to be admissible.

13. Subject to this Chapter, in civil proceedings any record in document form compiled in the ordinary course of business shall be presumed to be admissible as evidence of the truth of the fact or facts asserted in such a document where such a document complies with the requirements of this Chapter.

I have already compelled Mr B to hearing and reversed it as the complainant had informed the WRC that she did not intend on returning to the hearing.

I cannot elevate documents attributed to Mr B as evidence of truth as I have no means of corroborating the provisions of Section 14 (1) of that Act.

I move forward.

The Complainant did not demonstrate awareness of the impact of her strident approach on Ms H, who presented as very frightened of her in person on July 16, but calm and composed on November 13, in her absence.

I must conclude that the Complainant did indeed, in her own words take advantage of the September 2 email, scripted as an initial response to a risk assessment to guide her pregnancy in the workplace which then became a launch pad for a complaint to the WRC from early December 2024 up to and including 28 -30 December 2024 .

Once more, I found distinguishing facts in Healy, where a bonus was withheld from Ms Healy due to the complainant seeking advice from the then Equality Authority, now IHREC.

The Complainant built a dossier of issues in which she expressed a clear concern regarding workplace issues, but she was not in the workplace at these times.

The Complainant was on sick leave during the cognisable period of the claim from November 26, 2024. She was present in the workplace from 21 August -25 November 2024, with absences for approved leave. She had not returned to work by July 16, 2025, as she had resumed maternity leave.

In the instant case, I found that Ms H adopted a proactive approach to problem solving, but the complainant was not in a space to work towards problem solving at that time.

The Complainant has submitted documents from 2022, 2023 and 2025, which in my opinion have no direct relevant to this case. This included information directed at a Bank, the Data Protection Commissioner and are cumulatively outside my jurisdiction.

Section 85 A places the initial burden of proof on the complainant to allow me to infer from the facts she presented that Discrimination occurred on family or gender basis.

Burden of proof.

85A.— (1) Where in any proceeding’s 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.

Section 6 and Section 8

Discrimination for the purposes of this Act.

6.— (1) For the purposes of this Act and without prejudice to its provisions relating to discrimination occurring in particular circumstances discrimination shall be taken to occur where—

(a) a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as the "discriminatory grounds") which—

(i) exists,

(ii) existed but no longer exists,

(iii) may exist in the future, or

(iv) is imputed to the person concerned,

(b) a person who is associated with another person—

(i) is treated, by virtue of that association, less favourably than a person who is not so associated is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation, and

(ii) similar treatment of that other person on any of the discriminatory grounds would, by virtue of paragraph (a), constitute discrimination.

The Parties have both presented conflicting facts. The Complainant has abandoned the hearing by her refusal to participate at the resumed hearing.

I have considered the evidence adduced by the complainant. I have considered the Respondent response accompanied by the evidence of Ms H.

I find that the complainant has not raised a presumption of discrimination on this occasion on gender or family grounds.

 Instead, I found that she was requested to provide a medical certificate of fitness to proceed to investigation of her tabled issues. She was unreasonable in her refusal to furnish a medical certificate or attend the Company Doctor in aide of her own issues.

I could not establish that she experienced any acts of Discrimination on gender or family grounds in that regard.

The Complainant has not reached the burden of proof provided for in Section 85 A of the Act.

Her claim is not well founded.

Section 14 Harassment

Harassment and sexual harassment.

14A.— (1) For the purposes of this Act, where—

(a) an employee (in this section referred to as "the victim") is harassed or sexually harassed either at a place where the employee is employed (in this section referred to as "the workplace") or otherwise in the course of his or her employment by a person who is—

(i) employed at that place or by the same employer,

(ii) the victim’s employer, or

(iii) a client, customer or other business contact of the victim’s employer and the circumstances of the harassment are such that the employer ought reasonably to have taken steps to prevent it,

or

(b) without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a)—

(i) such harassment has occurred, and

(ii) either—

(I) the victim is treated differently in the workplace or otherwise in the course of his or her employment by reason of rejecting or accepting the harassment, or

(II) it could reasonably be anticipated that he or she would be so treated,

the harassment or sexual harassment constitutes discrimination by the victim’s employer in relation to the victim’s conditions of employment.

On the evidence before me, I have not established that the complainant’s evidence has reached the necessary burden of proof for Harassment in law.

The claim is not well founded.

Section 74(2) Victimisation, A Protected Act.

On the evidence before me, I accept that the Complainant has made a protected act of making a complaint to the WRC under Equality Legislation.

However, on the evidence, before me, I cannot establish that the Complainant was Victimised due her gender or family status.

I can accept that the complainant held a very strong belief she was Victimised, however, she has not managed to prove a causal connection between her protected Act and Victimisation.

I find the claim unfounded.

CA-00068349-002 Claim for Equal Pay

The Complainant has raised her dissatisfaction that she received pay increases   at the Respondent which amounted to Discrimination on grounds of gender and family.

She has not provided a viable comparator for either claim.

She has not come to give evidence in her case, as requested.

Section 19 of the Act provides for an equality clause in a contract of employment.

I would like to draw the party’s attention to A and B as separate and distinct entities.

Remuneration

Section 19

Entitlement to equal remuneration.

19.—(1) It shall be a term of the contract under which A is employed that, subject to this Act, A shall at any time be entitled to the same rate of remuneration for the work which A is employed to do as B who, at that or any other relevant time, is employed to do like work by the same or an associated employer.

(2) In this section "relevant time", in relation to a particular time, is any time (including a time before the commencement of this section) during the 3 years which precede, or the 3 years which follow, the particular time.

(3) For the purposes of this Part, where B’s employer is an associated employer of A’s employer, A and B shall not be regarded as employed to do like work unless they both have the same or reasonably comparable terms and conditions of employment.

(4) (a) Indirect discrimination occurs where an apparently neutral provision would put persons of a particular gender (being As or Bs) at a particular disadvantage in respect of remuneration compared with other employees of their employer.

 (b) Where paragraph (a) applies, the persons referred to in that paragraph shall each be treated for the purposes of subsection (1) as complying or, as the case may be, not complying with the provision concerned, whichever results in the higher remuneration, unless the provision is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving the aim are appropriate and necessary.

 (c) In any proceedings statistics are admissible for the purpose of determining whether this subsection applies in relation to A or B.]

(5) Subject to subsection (4), nothing in this Part shall prevent an employer from paying, on grounds other than the gender ground, different rates of remuneration to different employees

Section 7 describes like work and work of equal value.

Like work.

7.— (1) Subject to subsection (2), for the purposes of this Act, in relation to the work which one person is employed to do, another person shall be regarded as employed to do like work if—

(a) both perform the same work under the same or similar conditions, or each is interchangeable with the other in relation to the work,

(b) the work performed by one is of a similar nature to that performed by the other and any differences between the work performed or the conditions under which it is performed by each either are of small importance in relation to the work as a whole or occur with such irregularity as not to be significant to the work as a whole, or

(c) the work performed by one is equal in value to the work performed by the other, having regard to such matters as skill, physical or mental requirements, responsibility and working conditions.

The Respondent addressed the comparators put forward by the complainant as GP(T)  and IC(P) as earning €11.50 per hour alongside the complainant in May 2021

June 2022 €12.50                  comparators were aligned to €12.50 March 2023  

January 2024 all three moved to €14.50.

July 2024 all three moved to €16.

Other pay rates were assigned to supervisors and spa runners which were not comparable.

I must find that the complainant has not come forward to give evidence in this case. I believe she is mistaken in her claim for equal pay as she has not put forward a veritable comparator for me to investigate, that is someone of a different gender or family status. Reid v Teagasc EDA   2437, Labour Court. I have not been in a position to examine “the nature of the work actually performed “

I have not established that she was denied equal pay on family of gender basis. The Complainant has not met the necessary burden of proof.

The claim is not well founded.

CA-00068373-001 Terms and Conditions of Employment

The Complainant submitted that she had been a denied a reasoned reply to her request for employment with more predictable and secure working conditions within one month of her request.

I sought a confirmation of just when the complainant had made this request. She told me at hearing this was 21 August 2024. I asked for proof of this. The Complainant committed to identifying the document she relied on.

I require the single page document relied on by the complainant in seeking more predictable and secure working conditions.

This is an essential requirement to help me make a decision in this case. I explained that I would revisit this claim at the resumed hearing.

My jurisdiction is drawn from Section 5 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation.

to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Section 82 of the Act.

CA-000668349 -001 Complaint of 28 December 2024, Employment Equality.

I find that the complainant has not raised a presumption of discrimination on this occasion on gender or family grounds.

Her bid to distort the 2 September 2024 email was misleading.

  She was requested to provide a medical certificate of fitness to proceed to investigation of her tabled issues. She was unreasonable in her refusal to furnish a medical certificate or attend the Company Doctor in aide of her own issues.

I could not establish that she experienced any acts of Discrimination on gender or family grounds in that regard.

The Complainant has not reached the burden of proof provided for in Section 85 A of the Act.

Her claim is not well founded.

On the evidence before me, I have not established that the complainant’s evidence has reached the necessary burden of proof for Harassment in law.

The claim is not well founded.

Section 74(2) Victimisation, A Protected Act.

On the evidence before me, I accept that the Complainant has made a protected act of making a complaint to the WRC under Equality Legislation.

However, on the evidence, before me, I cannot establish that the Complainant was Victimised due her gender or family status.

I can accept that the complainant held a very strong belief she was Victimised, however, she has not managed to prove a causal connection between her protected Act and Victimisation.

I find the claim unfounded.

CA-00068349-002 Claim for Equal Pay

I have not established that the Complainant was denied equal pay on family of gender basis. The Complainant has not met the necessary burden of proof.

The claim is not well founded.

CA-00068373-001 December 30, 2024, complaint, Employment Equality.

A careful consideration of this complaint allows me to conclude is that it is inextricably linked to CA-00068349-001 on the facts of the case.

The claim cites Discrimination on grounds of family status and Victimisation.

This is a duplicate claim. The Complainant was unable to pinpoint what occurred on her “recent date of discrimination “of 30 December 2024 outside of linking this complaint to Mr B.

I find that the complainant has not raised a presumption of discrimination on this occasion on family grounds.

Her bid to distort the 2 September 2024 email was misleading.

  She was requested to provide a medical certificate of fitness to proceed to investigation of her tabled issues. She was unreasonable in her refusal to furnish a medical certificate or attend the Company Doctor in aide of her own issues.

I could not establish that she experienced any acts of Discrimination on gender or family grounds in that regard.

The Complainant has not reached the burden of proof provided for in Section 85 A of the Act.

Her claim is not well founded.

Section 74(2) Victimisation, A Protected Act.

On the evidence before me, I accept that the Complainant has made a protected act of making a complaint to the WRC under Equality Legislation.

However, on the evidence, before me, I cannot establish that the Complainant was Victimised due her family status.

I can accept that the complainant held a very strong belief she was Victimised, however, she has not managed to prove a causal connection between her protected Act and Victimisation.

I find the claim unfounded.

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 5 of that Act.

Section 5 of the Terms of Employment (information) Act 1994 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions of Section 7 of that Act.

CA-00068373-002 Terms and Conditions of Employment

For the reasons stated, I have decided to exercise my power under Section 42(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and dismiss CA-00068373-002 as vexatious.

CA-00068373-003 Terms and Conditions of Employment

For the reasons stated, I have decided to exercise my power under Section 42(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and dismiss CA-00068373-002 as vexatious.

Claims of Discrimination on family and Gender ground, Claim for Equal Pay, Penalisation.