Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Arun Raj Cheviri Kunhambu

Health Service Executive

Representatives

Self-represented 

Shane Costelloe, Beauchamps 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-00067763-001

29/11/2024

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

CA-00070663-001

08/04/2025

The complainant has been employed as a nurse in the Department of Psychiatry in St Luke’s Hospital, Kilkenny since April 2021.  He is on point 13 of the HSE pay scale for psychiatric nurses.  A copy of a payslip included in his documents shows that his annual salary in August 2024 was €53,121, not including allowances and premium pay.  A document he sent to the WRC on May 29th 2025 indicates that, in addition to his basic salary, he earned approximately €500 gross per week in premium pay and allowances.  The complainant has been absent from work since Monday March 4th 2024 because of an injury which he claims occurred at work the previous Friday, March 1st.

The hearing on May 26th 2025 was concerned with two complaints; the first, submitted to the WRC on November 29th 2024, is a complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1998 – 2015.  Under this heading, the complainant alleges that he was discriminated against on the ground of race, religion and disability because he was not approved for paid leave under the HSE’s Serious Physical Assault Scheme (SPAS).  During the hearing, he withdrew his complaint on the ground of religion.

In a second complaint, submitted on April 8th 2025, under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014, the complainant claims that he was penalised for making protected disclosures to his union representative, his line managers, an area director of nursing, a deputy director of nursing, the general manager of the hospital and to his solicitor. 

Events Leading to these Complaints

At 13.20 on Friday, March 1st, 2024, the complainant assisted his colleagues to restrain a patient on the ward where he works.  My understanding from the evidence given at the hearing is that the protocol regarding the safe restraining of a service-user is that four staff members are required to hold the patient; one at each arm, one at the legs and another at the head.  The complainant held the patient’s legs before he was relieved by a colleague.  I understand that nine employees were involved in the restraining procedure, which lasted for five minutes, with the first group of four being relieved by a second group.  A ninth employee administered an injection to the patient.  One nurse was bitten on the hand during the procedure and he attended the emergency department.  Following his treatment, this nurse returned to work and finished his shift.  I understand that all the nurses involved in the restraining procedure, including the complainant, finished their shifts.  In his evidence, the complainant said that the nurse who suffered the bite, who happens to be an agency nurse, reported that he was assaulted and received compensation.  I understand from the evidence of the assistant director of nursing, Ms Laura Hoban, that this employee did not report that he was assaulted and that he did not receive compensation.

Ms Hoban is an assistant director of nursing in the Allocations Department of St Luke’s Department of Psychiatry.  One of her responsibilities is the management of sick leave and the provision of support to employees to facilitate them to return to work after an illness or injury.  In her evidence, she said that, following the incident on March 1st, none of the nurses involved in the restraint episode reported that they were assaulted.  A National Incident Management System (NIMS) report form was not completed and the incident was recorded in detail on the patient’s record.   

The complainant was not rostered for work on Saturday and Sunday, March 2nd and 3rd.  A letter dated June 4th 2024 from the Freedom of Information (FoI) Decision Maker in the Kilkenny Mental Health Service indicates that he phoned the Allocations Department in the hospital on Sunday, March 3rd and informed a named CNM that he would not be at work the following day.  His mobile phone records show that he made the call at 09.56.  At 09.59, he sent a WhatsApp message to the personal phone of CNM A.  In his message, the complainant wrote:

“I seem to have sprained my neck Friday and it’s getting sore now I’ve called in sick tomorrow to go to the gp and will let you know what he says.”

At 13.51 on Monday, March 4th, the complainant sent another WhatsApp message to CNM A and reported that he had a right trapezius muscle strain and that he hoped to be back at work in a week.

On Friday of that week, March 8th, the complainant wrote to Ms Hoban as follows:

“Good afternoon Laura,

Hope you are keeping well.  I was off sick this week as I had an injury following the restraint last Friday.  My gp gave me a cert for this weeks.  He has adviced me today to take next week off as well and he is going to book me for an urgent mri scan as well since I’m still having aching pains on the right side of the neck extending down to the right arm (sic).  I humbly request you to grant me the same and I will produce the gp cert for next week.  Thanks in advance.

Kind regards

Arun Raj.”

The complainant also sent a copy of this email to the central mailbox in the Allocations Department.  He received a response instructing him, in accordance with the Attendance Management Policy, to make contact with the Allocations Department in person.  The complainant replied and said that he would call to the Allocations office on Monday, March 11th and that he would bring his medical certificate.

Staff in the public service are generally paid fortnightly and, it is apparent from the documents submitted by the complainant that Thursday, March 21st was pay day.  On that day, which was near the end of the complainant’s third week of absence, he sent an email to Ms Hoban in which he raised a query about his sick pay:

“Good evening Laura

Hope you are keeping well.  I have been on sick leave from the 4th of March following an assault during the restraint on the 1st of March 2024.  I would like to humbly bring to your notice that I have only been paid a flat rate sick pay for the previous fortnight.  Would you please advise me on accessing the pay and leave as per the serious physical assault leave application.  I greatly appreciate your help and support in this regard. Thanks in advance

Kind regards

Arun Raj.”

Ms Hoban was on leave on March 23rd and her emails were dealt with by a colleague, CNM B.  CNM B forwarded the complainant’s query to an assistant director of nursing (ADON) and sought advice about how to reply.  For clarity, I wish to record CNM B’s note here:

“Please see below from Arun.  This has been forwarded to Laura but I am aware that she is off today.  In relation to Arun’s alleged ‘an assault during the restraint on the 1st of March 2024,’ I have followed up with (name of the) CNM A of the (name of the) ward.  CNM A was on duty on the 1st March and additionally (name of a nurse) and I personally attended to ward after the restraint episode.

Please note the following:

§  Arun never alerted any member of staff to the alleged assault.

§  Both ADON on call, CNM 2 on duty and I all personally approached Arun separately to enquire if he needed anything and to make sure he was ok.  Arun stated, ‘I’m fine,” displayed no injuries and declined to take an extra few minutes off the unit that was offered.

§  Arun did not attend the Emergency Department at any time.

§  Arun did not complete an Incident Form of any kind.

§  Arun has only supplied a GP letter which states a possible strain.”

On Wednesday, March 27th, Ms Hoban replied to the complainant’s request for advice about how to access pay and leave under the SPAS scheme.  She said,

“This is proving difficult as there was no incident reported on your shift and no NIMS form completed.”

The complainant asked for a meeting “in person to explain the situation” and Ms Hoban arranged to meet him the following Wednesday, April 3rd.  Later, on March 27th, he sent an email to CNM A and asked her to complete a NIMS form for the restraint incident on March 1st.  The HSE’s submission states that CNM A explained to the complainant that she had not witnessed an assault on the complainant and that no other member of staff who were present reported that he had been assaulted.  CNM A completed the NIMS form based on her recollection of events and on what the complainant explained to her had happened and she submitted the form to the relevant department in the HSE.

In his evidence at the hearing, the complainant complained about the fact that CNM A stated on the form that he reported his injury “48 hours post restraint of patient.”  The complainant’s position is that he phoned the Allocations Department at 09.56 on Sunday, March 3rd and he sent a WhatsApp message to CNM A at 09.59.  As the restraint incident occurred on March 1st at 13.20 and ended at 13.35, and, as the complainant phoned the Allocations Department at 09.56 on Sunday, March 3rd, I have reached the following conclusion regarding the timing of his report of his injury:

§  Phone call at 09.56 on Sunday, March 3rd:  44 hours and 31 minutes after the incident on March 1st. 

§  WhatsApp message at 09.59 on Sunday, March 3rd:  44 hours and 34 minutes after the incident.

On Wednesday, April 3rd, the complainant sent a completed application form for SPAS to Ms Hoban and, on the same day, he attended a meeting with her and ADON.  The HSE’s Explanatory Note on Serious Physical Assault Scheme Leave defines a serious physical assault as,

“The intentional or reckless application of force against the person by another without lawful justification, or causing another to believe on reasonable grounds that s/he is likely immediately to be subjected to such force, without lawful justification, resulting in physical injury.” 

Ms Hoban told the complainant that local management in the Department of Psychiatry would not support his application for SPAS, because his involvement in the restraint of the service user resulted in him suffering an injury and that it did not meet the definition of a serious physical assault as set out in the SPAS form.  Ms Hoban advised the complainant to apply for the Occupational Injury Grant Scheme, because the injury he complained about was more appropriate to that scheme.  The complainant did not submit an application for SPAS at that time.

On Monday, April 8th, the complainant was referred to the HSE’s occupational health service for an assessment.

Arising from a query he sent to CNM A on Thursday, April 11th, on April 12th, Ms Hoban sent an email to the complainant in response to his request for confirmation regarding his application for SPAS:

“Following discussion with HR today re your Serious Physical Assault Scheme Application, this has NOT been approved as you do not meet the criteria.  It is advised that in this case you can apply for the injury at work grant.”

On April 19th, the complainant signed an application form to apply for the occupational injury grant (OIG).  It is apparent from the documents that he submitted that he was distressed about the fact that he was in receipt of sick pay, and that he was not being paid allowances or premium pay.  It seems that he was also concerned that he was about to go on half pay.

On May 23rd, leave and pay under the OIG scheme was approved by the regional employee relations manager, Mr David Green, to apply from March 4th until June 30th 2024.  When he was informed about this by Ms Hoban, the complainant replied, “Your help in this regard is greatly appreciated.”

In response to a request to the FoI Decision Maker in the Kilkenny Mental Health Services, the complainant was provided with various records, including a copy of the Clinical Practice Form for Physical Restraint which was developed by the Mental Health Commission (MHC) in accordance with s.33(3)(e) of the Mental Health Act 2001.  This document, completed by CNM A shortly after the restraint incident on March 1st 2024, contains the name of the person who ordered the physical restraint (CNM A) and the names of four of the people who participated in the restraint at the patient’s head, right arm, left arm and legs.  The complainant is not named on the form.  In his evidence, he said that he was relieved by a colleague who held the patient’s legs and then he helped to locate the injection site on the patient’s leg. 

It is apparent from the Clinical Practice form, that there is an assumption that only four people will be involved in the restraint of a patient, as there is space on the form for only four signatures.  The form completed for the incident on March 1st also contains the names of two additional staff but not their signatures; a person who held the patient’s head and the person who administered the injection.

On June 11th 2024, the complainant submitted a complaint under the HSE’s Dignity at Work Policy to the general manager of the Carlow / Kilkenny and South Tipperary Mental Health Services.  In his letter to the general manager, he referred to the documents that he received in response to his FoI application and he made several complaints about what he considered were discrepancies that ignored or minimised his involvement in the restraint incident on March 1st.  He told the general manager that he believes that the alleged discrepancies “resulted in me being denied the physical assault scheme.”  He claimed that he was discriminated against, directly and indirectly and that he was bullied.

On July 16th, Ms Hoban sent the complainant an email to alert him to the fact that the OIG payment ceased on June 30th and that he could apply for an extension.  The complainant replied and asked Ms Hoban to re-consider his application for leave under the SPAS.  Ms Hoban sent the complainant a form to sign to apply for an extension to his OIG.

On July 19th, the complainant wrote to Ms Hoban and said that he wasn’t happy to sign the form to extend his OIG because it stated that he phoned in sick 48 hours after the incident on March 1st, whereas he claims that he phoned in on Sunday, March 3rd before the expiry of 48 hours.  In his email to Ms Hoban, the complainant repeated his request to be considered for the SPAS leave.

From the documents he submitted, it is apparent that the complainant anticipated that he would be paid wages on Thursday, July 25th.  However, because he didn’t apply for an extension of OIG, no wages were paid.  When he enquired about his wages, at 14.39 on July 25th, he was informed by email by a member of the administration staff that an emergency payment had been organised, which he would receive in his bank account the next day.  As his entitlement to OIG had ended and, as he did not apply for an extension, he was paid certified sick pay.  This means that he was paid his wages, less any entitlement to social welfare illness benefit and without the application of allowances or premiums.

On July 31st, the complainant sent an email to payroll and said that he would prefer to remain on sick pay “until my application for serious physical assault scheme is approved.”

On August 26th 2024, following his persistent requests, Ms Hoban submitted an application for the complainant to avail of SPAS leave. 

On August 29th, in a letter to the deputy services manager of Kilkenny Mental Health Services, Mr David Green confirmed that the complainant’s application for SPAS leave was not approved because the view of local management was that the incident did not meet the definition of assault.  Although he commenced the process to appeal against this decision, the complainant did not complete the appeal process and, on November 29th 2024, he submitted a complaint of discrimination to the WRC.  On the date of this hearing, May 26th 2025, he remained absent from work, with no indication of when he would be able to return.

The complainant is a member of the Psychiatric Nurses Association (PNA).  In his evidence at the hearing, he said that he was advised by officials in the Association to submit a grievance about his concerns, which could be dealt with when he returned to work.  He said that he couldn’t wait until he returned to work because of what he claimed was “consistent harassment and penalisation.”  He said that he is suffering from numbness in his hand, and he also has psychological problems and he suffers from anxiety and depression.  He said that he wanted his voice to be heard.

When he submitted his complaint of discrimination to the WRC on November 29th 2024, the complainant was instructing a solicitor.  He said that he didn’t like how his solicitor was representing him and he decided to represent himself.  The documents he sent to the WRC on May 13th comprise the following:

1.       Witness statements related to the restraint of a patient on March 1st 2024;

2.       Copies of WhatsApp messages between him and a clinical nurse manager, CNM A, after the incident;

3.       Emails between him and CNM A about his absence due to injury;

4.       Correspondence related to his claim for income protection;

5.       Correspondence regarding an application to the HSE’s Serious Physical Assault Scheme;

6.       Correspondence related to an occupational injury grant claim and further correspondence regarding an application for an extension of the grant when it had expired;

7.       Correspondence related to the move from full sick pay to half pay;

8.       Correspondence related to an FoI application;

9.       Mobile phone records;

10.   Correspondence related to a referral to occupational health for a review;

11.   Emails between the complainant and his solicitor;

12.   Emails between the complainant and officials in the PNA;

13.   Correspondence regarding an application for an investigation under the HSE’s Dignity at Work Policy and details of a complaint under that policy;

14.   Correspondence related to a salary protection scheme administered by Cornmarket;

15.   Correspondence from an assistant director of nursing with regard to an attempt to resolve the complainant’s grievances;

16.   Correspondence with the MHC;

17.   Correspondence regarding an assessment following a medical certificate indicating that the complainant was suffering from work-related stress;

18.   Copies of medical certificates;

19.   A copy of an Injury Grant Application Form dated April 19th 2024;

20.   A copy of a National Incident Management System (NIMS) National Incident Report Form related to the restraint of a service user on March 1st 2024, completed on March 27th 2024;

21.   A review of an application to the Information Commissioner under s.15(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2014;

22.   A copy of a payslip relevant to July 15 to 28th 2024;

23.   A copy of an Information Sheet from the Health and Safety Authority regarding the Reporting of Workplace Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences;

24.   A copy of a PNA publication, “The Rights and Entitlements of Nurses Injured by Assault at Work;”

25.   A copy of an application by the complainant for Serious Physical Assault Scheme (SPAS) leave dated April 3rd 2024;

26.   Copies of emails between clinical nurse managers concerning the complainant’s application for injury on duty benefit and SPAS leave;

27.   A copy of correspondence dated January 20th 2025 from an assistant director of nursing to the complainant’s solicitor regarding a request to the complainant to attend a work-related stress risk assessment;

28.   A copy of an email dated July 1st 2024 from the HR shared services department concerning the fact that the complainant’s entitlement to occupational injury grant ended on June 30th.

In my efforts to investigate the complainant’s case, I have reviewed all the documents he submitted and they have assisted me to arrive at the conclusions that are set out in the next section.

Evidence of the Complainant Regarding his Complaint of Discrimination

In the absence of a representative to conduct his direct evidence, I asked the complainant to set out the background to his complaint that he has been discriminated against and I asked him questions about his experience since the incident in his workplace on March 1st 2024.

It is the complainant’s position that he should be entitled to claim paid leave under the SPAS scheme, because, during the restraining incident, he was injured and he considers this to be an assault.  He is aggrieved because his name was not included on the Clinical Practice Form which recorded the incident and he feels that this is related to him being from India.  He said that he helped the nurse who administered the injection to locate the injection site on the patient’s leg, and her name was included on the Clinical Practice Form and his name was left out.

The complainant explained that the incident on March 1st followed from a similar incident on February 24th 2024, involving the same service user and that he was involved in restraining the patient on that occasion also.  He said that three of his colleagues were injured on that occasion and that they received compensation.  He said that he wasn’t injured on February 24th.

The complainant is also unhappy about the fact that a NIMS report was not completed after the incident on March 1st.

The complainant claimed that a WhatsApp group was set up after the incident and that the colleagues who were involved in the restraint incident were included in the group and he was not. 

In the week after the incident, when he reported that he was injured, the complainant said that he was informed that he had to come to the Allocations Department in person, to report the injury.   He said that none of his colleagues had to do this. 

When he was informed by Ms Hoban that he was not eligible to apply for SPAS leave, the complainant said that he was never informed of the criteria used to assess an employee’s entitlement to this leave. 

The complainant complained that his colleagues who were involved in the incident on March 1st were all Irish and that they received calls to check on their welfare after the incident.

On the form he submitted to the WRC, the complainant states that the last date of discrimination was November 29th 2024.  He said that he doesn’t know why his solicitor put that date on the form.

When I asked the complainant about his allegation that he was discriminated on the ground of a disability, he said that he suffered from a neck injury as a result of the March 1st incident.  He said that Ms Hoban instructed payroll not to pay him when his OIG expired on June 30th 2024 and that this resulted in him being left without his wages for one and a half days, which was stressful for him and his family.

In relation to his application for OIG, the complainant claims that his injuries are not properly recorded on the form.

The complainant said that he experienced delays getting approval under the income protection scheme.

The complainant said that the incident that occurred on March 1st 2024 is stated on the NIMS forms to have occurred on March 3rd.  He complained that CNM A said that he reported that he was injured 48 hours post the incident, when he reported it sooner than that.

He complained that his medical certificates were not acknowledged, but he said that they are now being acknowledged.

He claims that there was no need for him to be sent for an assessment by the HSE’s occupational health consultant.

He claims that his annual leave dates were changed when he was on sick leave.

He complained that his OIG wasn’t approved until he was about to be put on half sick pay.  He complained that the form to apply for an extension of OIG was different from the original form.  He said that the second form states that he reported his injury on March 4th, whereas, he reported it on March 3rd.  He said that the form states that he reported his injury after 48 hours, which is not correct, because he reported it after 24 hours.  He said that the time of the incident is left blank on the first form and is wrong on the second form.  He said that, by asking him to sign this form, he was being asked to accept something that didn’t happen.

The complainant said that, because he has not been permitted to avail of SPAS leave, he has suffered a financial loss and that there are also implications for his pension.  He claims that he has been treated differently to his colleagues.

The complainant referred to the nurse who was bitten during the incident on March 1st and he claims that this person was compensated.

Evidence of the Complainant Regarding his Protected Disclosure

In response to my question to the complainant about what he understands to be the meaning of a protected disclosure, the complainant replied that his understanding is that it means “reporting a wrongdoing.”

On March 21st 2024, the complainant said that he sent an email to the PNA.  He wrote as follows:

“I was injured at work on the 1st of March 2024, following a restraint in (name of) ward. I have been on sick leave since then.  Would you please advise me whether I have to fill any paperwork to get my normal pay with allowance as I’m only getting my sick pay.  I would also like to get an occupational health referral to help me in getting back to normal.  I would really appreciate it if you could give me a phone call or arrange an appointment if feasible. Thanks in advance.”

The complainant said that a report should have been sent to the Health and Safety Authority (HSA) 10 working days after he was absent for three days, but that it was not sent for more than two months.  He said that the report mentioned that the date of the injury was March 3rd and that he reported that he was injured 48 hours after the incident.  His position is that he was injured on March 1st and that he reported it by WhatsApp message and in a phone call on March 3rd.  He said that he reported these discrepancies to the general manager of the Carlow / Kilkenny and South Tipperary Mental Health Services on April 28th and June 11th 2024.

The complainant said that he contacted the MHC to ask them if he could get him name included on the Clinical Practice Form for Physical Restraint and that he was informed that this was a protected disclosure.  He also contacted the PNA to inform them that a report had not been sent to the HSA until May 3rd 2024 and that it wrongly stated that the date of his injury was March 3rd.

The document that the complainant sent to the WRC after the hearing, on May 27th 2025 is a response to his disclosure to the MHC about the failure to include his name on the Clinical Practice Form for Physical Restraint, which recorded the restraint episode on March 1st.  On September 9th 2024, the Designated Person in the Commission who considered his report, wrote as follows:

“The Mental Health Commission Regulatory Team carried out a review of the contents of your report.  The review considered the relevant quality and safety notifications, and it was determined that no further regulatory action was required.”

The complainant said that he believes that the reason that the Clinical Report Form states that he sustained an injury on March 3rd and not March 1st is penalisation for bringing his concerns to the attention of the PNA.

When he made a complaint to the general manager, he claims that he was penalised when his application for the OIG was delayed until May 22nd 2024.  He said that he was never made aware that his wages would be stopped if he didn’t complete the application form for an extension before June 30th 2024.

The complainant said that a delay was caused in the payment of his income protection payment, because he wasn’t sent the correct forms to apply.

He claims that some documents were excluded from the documents he received in response to his FoI application.

When he went for an assessment by the HSE’s occupational health consultant, the complainant said that he was advised that an assessment wasn’t necessary at that time.

For almost a month after he sent in his medical certificates, the complainant said that they were not acknowledged.

The complainant said that he was hoping for a resolution of these matters, so that his mental health could improve.  When I asked him what a resolution might involve, he said that he wanted to “bring this to the attention of people.”  He said that he is seeking compensation for his losses.  He wants to be approved for SPAS leave and he wants to stay on that form of leave until he gets better.  He also wants what he described as “an appropriate job” when he is ready to come back to work.

At the conclusion of his direct evidence, when I asked the complainant if he was satisfied that he had told me everything that he wanted me to know, he said, “I think so.”  He said that it is important to him that someone has heard his complaints.

Cross-examining of the Complainant

In response to questions from Mr Costelloe, the complainant agreed that his name and the names of three of his colleagues are not included on the Clinical Practice Form that records the restraint incident that occurred on March 1st 2024.  He agreed that the three other people whose names are not included are Irish.

The complainant agreed with Mr Costelloe that he and an agency nurse were injured.  He said that the bite was an assault and he believes that this nurse received compensation.

The complainant said that he has submitted a claim to the Injuries Resolution Board, but, because the HSE is not accepting that he was assaulted, he has to bring his claim to court.

The complainant agreed that his complaint of discrimination is related to the fact that his name is not included on the Clinical Practice Form.  He said that five people were involved in the restraint incident on February 24th 2024, and he was not named.  He said that the discrimination he is complaining about runs from February 24th 2024 until June of that year, when his medical certificates were not acknowledged.  The complainant stated that he is unsure why his solicitor put November 29th 2024 on the complaint form he submitted to the WRC.

The complainant agreed that he met Ms Hoban in early April 2024.  He complained that he wasn’t approved for SPAS.  He said that he got a phone call from an official in the PNA on April 19th, who advised him that he only had a 50/50 chance of being approved for SPAS leave.  He said that he was advised to apply for the injury grant.  He said that he doesn’t know what criteria the PNA was using to reach an assessment that he had a 50/50 chance of success.

Mr Costelloe asked the complainant why he didn’t make an application for SPAS until after he spoke to the PNA.  He said that an official in the PNA suggested that he should apply for SPAS.  He said that the officials told him that when you go to restrain a patient, you could come under assault.  He said that his first contact with the PNA about the matter was on March 21st 2024.  Following his enquiry with the PNA, he sent an email to Ms Hoban.

The complainant said that he had been talking to colleagues in work about SPAS and that he wasn’t sure how the application process works.

The complainant said that he was assaulted in July 2023, but he came back to work after three days.  He didn’t see any point in applying for sick leave at the time.  He said that CNM A was the PNA branch secretary at the time and he mentioned it to her, but, after three days, he was back at work.

Mr Costelloe referred to the complainant’s complaint under the Protected Disclosures Act which he submitted to the WRC on April 8th 2025.  Mr Costelloe noted that the complainant has not indicated any date on which he made a protected disclosure.  He said that he couldn’t recall doing training on protected disclosures at his induction.

Mr Costelloe asked the complainant why he thinks his query to the PNA on March 21st 2024 about SPAS leave is a protected disclosure.  He said that it appears that he was looking for information from the PNA about SPAS leave and he was aggrieved about his sick pay.  The complainant replied that he was informed by Ms Hoban that an incident form was not completed and his understanding is that this comes under the heading of speaking to a manager about a serious incident.

Mr Costelloe put it to the complainant that “this was you reporting a grievance.”  The complainant replied that he spoke to the PNA at the time about the fact that names were not included.  He said that other names were also left out.

Mr Costelloe said that the complainant didn’t bring this to the attention of the general manager until June 11th 2024.  He said that the complainant mentioned it to Ms Hoban, but he did not state that he was making a protected disclosure.  He said that he was reporting that no incident report was completed after a serious incident.

Mr Costelloe suggested to the complainant that “this is all about an issue related to you.”  He referred to the complainant’s email to the general manager on June 11th which, he said was about grievances.  The complainant said that an area director investigated his complaints and he got a letter to say that they were not upheld.  He said that he feels that this is not a proper outcome.

Mr Costelloe put it to the complainant that he didn’t tell the general manager that he was making a protected disclosure or that he was seeking an investigation under the Protected Disclosures Policy.  The complainant said that he got a phone call from an ADON who asked him to meet to sort things out amicably.  Then he got a letter about a meeting under the Dignity at Work Policy.

Mr Costelloe said that the purpose of meeting the ADON was to carry out an initial screening to see if there was evidence of bullying.  The outcome was that no bullying was taking place.

At the meeting under the heading of the Dignity at Work Policy, Mr Costelloe asked the complainant why he didn’t explain that he wanted to make a protected disclosure, not a complaint about dignity at work.  The complainant replied that he told the ADON that his salary should not have been stopped on July 25th.  He said that he also told her about the incident form not being completed.

Mr Costelloe asked the complainant about the outcome of his submission to the MHC regarding a protected disclosure.  He said he received a reply that said that the names of the people involved in the restraint should be on the restraint report.  A record of the response of the MHC to the complainant’s protected disclosure is at page 10 above.  The actual response is not consistent with the evidence of the complainant.    

Preliminary Issues

On the form he submitted to the WRC, the complainant stated that the most recent date of discrimination was November 29th 2024.  No evidence is provided to show what exact incident of alleged discrimination occurred on that date.  Mr Costelloe submitted that, if the complainant cannot present evidence regarding an incident that occurred on November 29th 2024, his complaint is outside the six-month timeframe from May 30th until November 29th 2024.

Mr Costelloe submitted that the complainant has not established that, on the basic facts, he was discriminated against.   He referred to s.85A of the Employment Equality Acts, which provides that a complainant must establish facts, from which it may be presumed that discrimination has occurred.  Such facts must be of “sufficient significance” before the initial burden is discharged.

In its decision on the Southern Health Board v Mitchell[1], the Labour Court held that the facts must raise a presumption of discrimination.  The complainant states that he was discriminated against and treated less favourably than a comparator when he was refused access to the SPAS scheme.  The HSE’s position is that the complainant simply did not meet the definition of "serious physical assault" contained in the Explanatory Note of the SPAS Leave Application and that no discrimination occurred.

The HSE does not deny that an incident of restraint took place on March 1st 2024, nor that the complainant was involved in a restraint, but it is simply the case that the incident does not meet the stipulated definition of serious physical assault, and this is the reason that he was not approved for SPAS leave and pay.

It is not enough for the complainant to say, "I am different to some of my colleagues" and for this alone to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.  As seen in A Female Teacher v A Board of Management[2], there must be some credible, significant evidence from which it can be reasonably inferred that the employer's actions were discriminatory.

Regarding the complainant's assertion that he suffered penalisation following the making of a protected disclosure to "my union representative, line managers, area director of nursing, deputy director of nursing, general manager, mental health commission, solicitor", the HSE has taken extensive steps to investigate if the complainant made any protected disclosures.  There is no record that he made a protected disclosure to local management or to the Employee Relations Department.  In addition, the complainant has not provided any evidence of the purported penalisation he has suffered as a result of making an alleged protected disclosure.  When the complaint was submitted to the WRC on April 8th 2025, the cognisable period for such penalisation is between October 9th 2024 and April 8th 2025.

Response to the Complainant’s Claims

In an attempt to demonstrate less favourable treatment, the complainant has referred to, but has not named comparators.  He states that his comparators are “other employees who were also subject to assaults by the same service user.”  Mr Costelloe argued that the complainant cannot rely on a hypothetical comparator for the purpose of demonstrating that he was discriminated against.  At set out in the decision of the Supreme Court in National University of Ireland Cork v Ahern[3], it is for the complainant to choose his comparator and not for the WRC or the respondent to do so.

It is the HSE’s position that nurses were previously assaulted by the service user who was the subject of the restraint procedure on March 1st 2024 in which the complainant suffered his injury, but that he was not treated less favourably compared to his colleagues.  The fact of the difference in treatment arises from the facts and circumstances of the physical interactions, with those who were successful in their SPAS applications being seriously assaulted, but the complainant was not assaulted.

The SPAS application form does not require an applicant to identify their nationality, race, religion or other characteristic and the HSE is not aware of the purported characteristics of discrimination which the complainant claims determined the result of his SPAS application. 

Notwithstanding the failure of the complainant to definitively identify less favourable treatment due to his race, religion, disability or otherwise, when compared to his identified group of comparators, the HSE can show multiple occasions where it has approved SPAS applications for employees who are, as far as the employer is aware, from a variety of different ethnic backgrounds with potentially a variety of religious beliefs.  Separately, an application has been rejected from a female whom the Respondent believes is Irish.

Examples of successful SPAS applications demonstrate the level of assault which meets the definition of serious physical assault.  This is a matter of judgment based on the facts of the incident and not in any case based on an applicant's race, religion, disability or other category of equality classification.

The complainant was advised to apply for the OIG, which he did, and which he received.  The difference between the two schemes is that SPAS is paid at 100% of salary for six months but at that point, unless extended for a maximum of two three-month extensions, the recipient then reverts to OIG so long as they are unable to report for work due to their ongoing injuries.  OIG is an indefinite payment of five sixths of salary which can continue until retirement so long as the recipient is unable to work due to their injuries.  It is the HSE’s position that it was doing everything it could within the parameters of the various long term absence schemes to assist the complainant to be financially supported through this difficult time.

The HSE is not aware of any disability which would support a complaint of discrimination as submitted by the complainant.  If it is the case that he is proffering the injury he suffered on March 1st 2024 as the disability regarding which he has suffered discrimination, the HSE’s position is that it would be unfair and broadly impossible to defend any case which is made under the Equality Acts where a person is refused SPAS.  By its very nature, a SPAS application will inevitably have a medical element attaching which is likely to amount to the definition of a disability under the Equality Acts.

Mr Costelloe concluded his submission by asserting that the complainant is conflating the rejection of his SPAS application, because he did not meet the definition of serious physical assault, with the fact that he is of a different ethnicity, religion, and currently suffers from a disability.  There is no less favourable treatment on any of the grounds he presents, and he has not provided sufficient evidence to show that a comparator was treated more favourably than him where the circumstances of the injuries suffered and the incidents arising from them are, as far as the HSE is aware, different, because serious assaults took place.

Evidence of Ms Laura Hoban, Assistant Director of Nursing in the Allocations Department

In her direct evidence, Ms Hoban said that, in accordance with the Code of Practice on Restraint, there is no requirement to complete a NIMS report unless a person is injured.  Ms Hoban referred to “the restraint book” which I understand is the Clinical Practice Form for Physical Restraint.  She said that the form has space for four names.  It is completed by the most senior person involved in the episode. 

When I asked Ms Hoban why the complainant’s name wasn’t included, she said that it may be because he reported that someone relieved him during the procedure.  She said that there is no harm done if someone involved in a restraint doesn’t sign the form.

Ms Hoban said that in her role in Allocations, she is the person who deals with applications under the SPAS leave scheme.  She said that the person who suffered the bite did not make an application for SPAS leave.  She said that he went to the accident and emergency department and he returned to work and finished he shift.  He was not out sick as a result.

Ms Hoban repeated that the NIMS form is not a regulatory requirement.  She said that, on March 27th 2024, the complainant contacted CNM A and asked her to complete a NIMS form for him.  CNM A did not witness an assault on the complainant.

Ms Hoban said that the complainant’s application for OIG was approved by the employee relations manager for three months until June 30th 2024.  When she became aware that the OIG was running out, Ms Hoban said that she contacted the complainant and asked him if he wanted to apply for an extension.  She said that there was a sense of urgency in her engagement with the complainant and she sent him an email with the form attached and she posted it to him at home.  The complainant expressed a concern about the reference to “post 48 hours” from the incident on March 1st.  At that point, his application had been approved and she was prompting him that it would be approved.

Ms Hoban told her line manager that the complainant had refused to sign the application form for an extension to his OIG.  She said that her manager contacted him.  She said that the payroll department contacted her and there was some “to and fro” about whether he should be paid.  Ms Hoban said that they decided not to put through a payment, because it would be problematic if it had to be reimbursed.  When the complainant wasn’t paid, he contacted payroll and an emergency payment was arranged for the following day.  She said that the problem was sorted out in a short time.

Ms Hoban said that she was trying to support the complainant, but he didn’t want to sign the form to apply for an extension of OIG. 

With regard to an application for SPAS leave, Ms Hoban said that her job is to recommend an application for approval to the employee relations manager.  She did not recommend the complainant’s application because there was no report that he was assaulted.

Ms Hoban said that her responsibility in the Department of Psychiatry is the welfare of staff.  She said that the employee assistance service was made available to all the employees involved in the restraint episode, including the complainant.

When the complainant’s concerns had been going on for a long time, Ms Hoban said that she asked one of her colleagues to step in to support him.  She said that her colleague then contacted him on a weekly basis.  When his medical certificates indicated that he was suffering from work-related stress, her colleague arranged a stress risk assessment.

Mr Costelloe asked Ms Hoban about the complainant’s allegations that his annual leave dates were changed.  Ms Hoban said that his request to take leave from the next leave year was approved, but when his mother was coming to Ireland, he changed his mind about going to India for a month, and he said that he didn’t need the leave from the following year.  Then he went on sick leave.  His name was blacked out on the roster when he commenced his sick leave.

Mr Costelloe asked Ms Hoban about the email from her colleague, the CNM who I have previously referred to as “CNM B.”  CNM B sent an email to the HR Department, in response to the complainant’s query about an application for SPAS (reproduced at page 4 above).  The complainant’s view is that CNM B’s report may have had a negative influence on his application.

Ms Hoban said that CNM B was on site when the incident took place on March 1st 2024.  She said that she sent her this statement on March 24th, in which she said that the complainant did not report that he was assaulted.  CNM A did not complete an incident form, because there was no injury reported at the time of the restraint episode on March 1st.  From CNM A’s perspective, there was no need for an incident form.

On March 27th 2024, in response to a request from the complainant, CNM A completed a NIMS form.  Mr Costelloe asked Ms Hoban about the complainant’s concern that CNM A stated that he reported that he was injured “48 hours post restraint of patient.”  Ms Hoban said that this reference to 48 hours is a broad statement and is not important.

Ms Hoban answered questions about the complainant’s FoI applications.  She said that he wasn’t happy that he had been provided with the documents he requested and he submitted an appeal to the Information Commissioner.  The Information Commissioner affirmed the HSE’s decision not to release records other than those already provided to the complainant regarding his application for OIG and SPAS.

Mr Costelloe referred to the delay that the complainant endured getting a response to his application for income continuance.  Ms Hoban said that there is a lot of complexity associated with such an application and a requirement to carry out occupational health assessments.  The income protection insurers want to ensure that an employee has exhausted all avenues before making a payment.

Cross-examining of Ms Hoban by the Complainant

The complainant said that when he sent Ms Hoban an email on March 21st, an incident report had not been completed in relation to the restraining incident on March 1st.  He asked Ms Hoban if anyone informed her about his injury.  Ms Hoban replied that it was reported that the complainant was out sick with a strained neck.  A report to this effect was submitted to the HSA by an ADON.

The complainant said that he was informed locally that a near miss was reported in an incident form on March 3rd.  Ms Hoban replied that CNM A, who completed the NIMS form on March 27th, may have been confused, because no injury was reported on the day of the incident on March 1st.

In response to his involvement in the restraining episode as the person who held the patient’s legs, Ms Hoban told the complainant that four people signed the Clinical Practice Form.  She said that she isn’t sure if this document is sent to the MHC, or if they are provided with the names of the people involved.

The complainant referred to the application form to apply for an extension to his OIG.  He said that he wasn’t happy to complete it.  He said that he was told by payroll that Ms Hoban told them not to pay him. Ms Hoban replied that, if the complainant had been paid OIG, and if he didn’t apply for an extension, he would have owed money to his employer, because OIG is greater than sick pay.  Ms Hoban said that she didn’t want that to happen.  Final details for payroll had to be submitted and she agreed with the payroll department that, when he didn’t apply for his OIG to be extended, no wages would be paid.  When the complainant received no wages, an emergency payment was organised for the following day.

The complainant asked if there is a reason that he wasn’t given the original OIG application form to sign.  Ms Hoban replied that, in July 2024, he was applying for an extension to his OIG.  She said that she filled out the form “briskly” so that he wouldn’t miss out on wages.  She said that she was trying to get things moving quickly.

Concluding her evidence, Ms Hoban referred to the complainant’s contention that he was asked to present himself to allocations with his medical cert on March 11th 2024.  Ms Hoban said that he was required to present a medical certificate, and that it could have been sent by email or post.  He was not required to attend in person.

Evidence of the Employee Relations Manager, Mr David Green

Mr Green said that he is the final approver of applications for long-term illness benefit in the South East region.  He deals with all applications for SPAS.  Mr Green referred to a number of applications for SPAS which were included in the HSE’s book of documents for the hearing.  Some of these related to a restraining episode on February 24th 2024 in which the complainant also participated but was not assaulted.  These applications were approved.  Other applications were included in the HSE’s documents, including applications from employees who appear to be foreign nationals.  The documents do not specify the nationality of the employees concerned.  There is also an example of an application from employee with an Irish name that wasn’t approved.

Cross-examining of Mr Green by the Complainant

Mr Green agreed with the complainant that the SPAS application form he received from Ms Hoban in August 2024 indicated that local management did not recommend that he should be approved for the leave.  Mr Green said that he agreed with the local management that the incident did not meet the definition of assault.

Mr Green said that he has the final authority to approve the leave.

The complainant told Mr Green that the occupational health consultant was confused about why he wasn’t approved for SPAS.  Mr Green replied that the approval of leave is not within the area of expertise of an occupational health doctor.  He referred to the doctor’s statement which he said, is general with no depth of knowledge about the leave procedures.

The complainant asked Mr Green if SPAS has ever been approved for an injury that emerged in the days after an incident.  Mr Green said that there are such examples, where the leave is approved when an injury is reported after an incident.  However, he said that an application for the scheme can only be initiated on foot of an assault.

The complainant referred to an injury that might occur during training to manage violence and aggression.  He asked if SPAS leave would be approved in such circumstances.  Mr Green replied that an injury that occurs during training would not come under the heading of SPAS, but would be classified as an occupational injury.

CA-00067763-001:  Complaint under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 – 2015

Section 77(5)(a) of the Employment Equality Acts sets out the timeframe within which a complaint must be referred to the WRC:

“Subject to paragraph (b), a claim for redress in respect of discrimination or victimisation may not be referred under this section after the period of 6 months from the date of occurrence of the discrimination or victimisation to which the case relates, or, as the case may be, the date of its most recent occurrence.”

Paragraph (b) provides that where there is “reasonable cause,” there may be an extension of the time limit from six to 12 months.  The complainant did not apply for an extension of the time limit.

This complaint was submitted to the WRC on November 29th 2024 and therefore, the timeframe for which I have jurisdiction to consider if there has been a contravention of the Act is from May 30th until November 29th 2024.

CA-00070663-001:  Complaint under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014

The Protected Disclosures Act 2014 is included in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, which lists the enactments under which complaints may be presented to the WRC for investigation.  At s.41(6), the timeframe within which complaints may be submitted for adjudication is set out:

“…an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.”

An extension of time is provided for at s.41(8); however, the complainant did not apply for an extension.

On May 30th 2024, which is the date from which I have authority to consider if there is substance to the complainant’s contention that he was discriminated against, the complainant had been absent from work for almost three months.  His contention that he was discriminated against arises from his belief that he was not approved for SPAS leave because his name was excluded from a Clinical Practice Form that recorded a restraining episode on March 1st 2024 and because an incident form wasn’t completed.  He claims that these alleged failures on the part of management resulted in him not being approved for SPAS leave.  While these matters pre-date May 30th 2024, I wish to address the complainant’s allegations that these management decisions were intended to discriminate against him because he is from India and because he has a disability.

I have taken some time to review the documents submitted by the complainant, and I have listened carefully to his evidence and the evidence of the managers who attended for the HSE.  The Clinical Practice Form that recorded the incident on March 1st 2024 omits the complainant’s name and the names of three of his colleagues who appear to be Irish.  Aside from the finding of the MHC that the exclusion of the four names was not a regulatory breach, the complainant’s name was excluded with the name of three Irish people and therefore, there is absolutely no substance to his contention that, by not including his name on the form, he was discriminated against.

The second issue that the complainant claims is discriminatory was the fact that a NIMS form wasn’t completed regarding the incident on March 1st 2024.  At the complainant’s insistence, a NIMS form was completed on March 27th.  I am satisfied that the reason that a form wasn’t completed on March 1st is because no member of staff reported that they were injured on that day.  No discrimination arises from the delay filling in the NIMS form.  I find also that there is nothing discriminatory in the reference on the form to the fact that the complainant reported his injury “48 hours post the incident” when he reported it 44 hours and 31 minutes after the incident.

The third issue that the complainant alleges was discriminatory is the decision not to approve his application for SPAS leave.  The title of the scheme, “Serious Physical Assault Scheme,” is indicative of the purpose of this type of leave, which is to provide salary protection to employees who are seriously assaulted in the course of their work.  A serious physical assault is defined as,

“The intentional or reckless application of force against the person by another without lawful justification, or causing another to be subjected to such force without lawful justification, resulting in physical injury.”

The complainant presented no evidence that would lead me to conclude that he was seriously assaulted by the person who was being restrained, or that he was assaulted at all.  I am entirely satisfied that the decision of the management not to approve his application for leave arising from an assault was correct and reasonable.

From May 30th 2024 onwards, the complainant remained absent due to his injury.  He claims that, during the period up to November 29th 2024, when he submitted this complaint to the WRC, he was discriminated against because he has a disability and because he is from India.

An issue arose in July 2024, regarding the extension of the complainant’s application for OIG.  When he refused to sign the application form for the extension, he didn’t receive any wages.  This was rectified the following day when he was paid certified sick pay.  I am satisfied that the decision of Ms Hoban and the payroll officer not to put through sick pay for the complainant was due to the fact that he disagreed with the information on the application form and that it was not related in any way to his Indian nationality, or to the fact that he was injured and suffering from a disability at the time.

Conclusion

Based on the primary facts presented by the complainant, as set out in the documents he submitted for the hearing, and in his evidence on May 26th 2025, I have reached the conclusion that complainant was not approved for SPAS leave because he was not assaulted on March 1st 2024.  I am satisfied that the decision to exclude him from the scheme was not discriminatory, but that it was based on an analysis of the event that occurred on that day by the manager who was present, and by others who attended on the ward immediately afterwards.  As the complainant has not demonstrated to me that, because of his race and his disability, he was treated less favourably than any other person in similar circumstances, he has failed to discharge the burden of proving that, on the basic facts of his case, he was discriminated against.  The responsibility for proving that discrimination has not occurred does not now shift to the respondent.

On the form he submitted to the WRC on April 8th 2025, the complainant said that he made a protected disclosure to "my union representative, line managers, area director of nursing, deputy director of nursing, general manager, mental health commission, solicitor."

The definition of “protected disclosure” is set out at section 5(1) of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014, “the Act.”  

“For the purposes of this Act ‘protected disclosure’ means, subject to subsections (6) and (7A) and sections 17 and 18, a disclosure of relevant information … made by a worker in the manner specified in section 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10.”

Sub-sections (6) and (7A) respectively address the disclosure of trade secrets and legally privileged information and these are not relevant for this complaint.  Sections 17 and 18 refer to law enforcement and international relations and are also not relevant here.  Sections 6 to 10 set out a tiered disclosure process and provide that information related to wrongdoings may be provided to a prescribed person, an employer, a government minister, a legal advisor or to another person.

For our purpose regarding this complaint therefore, a “protected disclosure” is the disclosure by an employee to his or her employer, or another person, of relevant information.  Section 5(2) of the Act provides that,

“information is ‘relevant information’ if—

(a) in the reasonable belief of the worker, it tends to show one or more relevant wrongdoings, and

(b) it came to the attention of the worker in connection with the worker’s employment.”

The operative clause concerning whether information shows that a relevant wrongdoing has occurred, is occurring or will occur is “reasonable belief.”  Section 5(8) provides that in these proceedings at the WRC, “involving an issue as to whether a disclosure is a protected disclosure it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that it is.”  In the Q & A material included as an appendix to the “Statutory Review of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014,” the reviewers note that,

“…all that is required is a reasonable belief that the information disclosed shows or tends to show that the wrongdoing is occurring.  This is a deliberately low threshold designed to ensure that most reports are made to the person best placed to correct the alleged wrongdoing – the employer.”

It is apparent from this that the Act intends that “relevant information” concerning an alleged wrongdoing is provided to the employer so that the wrongdoing can be addressed and, that the employee does not have to be convinced that a wrongdoing is occurring but that the lower threshold of reasonable belief applies. 

Section 5(3) of the Act lists the matters that are considered to be relevant wrongdoings:

The following matters are relevant wrongdoings for the purposes of this Act -

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

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

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

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

(e) that the environment has been, is being or is likely to be damaged,

(f) that an unlawful or otherwise improper use of funds or resources of a public body, or of other public money, has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur,

(g) that an act or omission by or on behalf of a public body is oppressive, discriminatory or grossly negligent or constitutes gross mismanagement, or

(h) that information tending to show any matter falling within any of the preceding paragraphs has been, is being or is likely to be concealed or destroyed.

There are three components to the making out of a claim of penalisation under the Protected Disclosures Act:

1.  An employee must have a reasonable belief that a wrongdoing is occurring, has occurred or might occur;

2.  They must communicate what they know about the alleged wrongdoing to a prescribed person, their employer, a government minister, a legal advisor or another person;

3.  They must show that, because of their communication about the alleged wrongdoing, they have been penalised.

Did the Complainant Make a Protected Disclosure?

At the hearing, the complainant presented no evidence that he made a protected disclosure and his contention that he did so is based on emails that he sent to various parties seeking assistance with his campaign to be approved for SPAS leave and other benefits related to his absence due to injury.  From early on after the incident on March 1st 2024, the complainant was aggrieved that his certified sick pay did not match his normal wages and, from then on, his concern was to get approval for SPAS leave.  His communications to the parties he has listed, his union, his line manager, the area directors of nursing, the general manager of the service and his solicitor, are all efforts to find a mechanism for the granting of SPAS leave.  They are not protected disclosures and they refer to a grievance, and not a wrongdoing. 

The complainant submitted no document that has a title, “Protected Disclosure” and the only reference to a protected disclosure is the response he received from the MHC to his concern that his name was not included on the Clinical Practice Form relating to the restraining incident on March 1st 2024.  The MHC considered his claim to meet the threshold that, on a “prima facie” basis, it was a protected disclosure.  This was subsequently found not to be a breach of regulations, and it is disconcerting that he persisted to pursue a claim under the same heading to the WRC.

I have considered the complainant’s evidence and I am satisfied that he did not make a protected disclosure, and further, that he was not penalised in any manner.  I find that his complaint under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 is without substance.

CA-00067763-001:  Complaint under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 – 2015

I have concluded that the complainant has failed to discharge the burden of proof which requires him to set out the primary facts that can be relied upon to establish a complaint of discrimination.  Based on this conclusion, I have decided that his complaint under the Employment Equality Acts is not well founded.

CA-00070663-001:  Complaint under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014

I am satisfied that the complainant did not make a protected disclosure and I decide therefore, that his complaint under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 is not well founded.

Sick leave, absence, equality, discrimination, protected disclosure