EDA2552

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00047220 (CA-00058144-002)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the decision of the WRC Adjudication Officer under Section 83 (1), Employment Equality Acts, 1998 to 2015 on 20 December 2023. Labour Court hearings took place on 8 November 2024, 29 January 2025 and 4 June 2025. The following is the Determination of the Court:

DETERMINATION:

This is an appeal by Bernadette Baker of a decision of an Adjudicator Officer (ADJ-00047220 dated 19 December 2023) regarding a complaint made under the Employment Equality Act 1998 (“the Act”) against her former employer, the Health Service Executive.

The Adjudication Officer found that the complaint under the Act was not well founded.

A Notice of Appeal was received by the Court on 20 December 2023. This appeal is linked to PWD2522 and TED2513 which were heard on the same day.

In this Determination the parties are referred to as they were at first instance. Hence, Bernadette Baker is referred to “the Complainant” and the Health Services Executive is referred to as “the Respondent”.

Summary Position of the Complainant

The Complainant submits that she was victimised because she raised various complaints with the Respondent and was subject to unconscious bias during her employment.

In her written submission to the Court, the Complainant stated that she was subject to adverse treatment by the Respondent as she was victimised on the grounds of her “class”, “religion” and “sex.  At the hearing of the Court, the Complainant submitted that she was penalised by the Respondent on the grounds of her “civil status”, “religion” and “sexual orientation”. 

Summary Position of the Respondent

The Complainant did not make any complaint under the Employment Equality Act which could give rise to a complaint of victimisation under the Act.

Relevant Law

Section 74 of the Act provides in relevant part as follows:-

“victimisation” shall be construed in accordance with subsection (2).

(2) For the purposes of this Part victimisation occurs where dismissal or other adverse treatment of an employee by his or her employer occurs as a reaction to—

(a) a complaint of discrimination made by the employee to the employer,

(b) any proceedings by a complainant,

(c) an employee having represented or otherwise supported a complainant,

(d) the work of an employee having been compared with that of another employee for any of the purposes of this Act or any enactment repealed by this Act,

(e) an employee having been a witness in any proceedings under this Act or the Equal Status Act 2000 or any such repealed enactment,

(f) an employee having opposed by lawful means an act which is unlawful under this Act or the said Act of 2000 or which was unlawful under any such repealed enactment, or

(g) an employee having given notice of an intention to take any of the actions mentioned in the preceding paragraphs.

Determination

To come within the protection the Act a person must have suffered discrimination on one of the nine grounds set out at section 6(2) of the Act.

Where an employee complains of victimisation, the adverse treatment alleged must be carried out by the employer solely or mainly in reaction to an employee committing a “protected act” as set out at section 74(2) of the Act.

In response to questions from the Court, the Complainant confirmed that she never made a complaint of discrimination, or made any protected act, during her employment with the Respondent such that it would entitle her to take a complaint of victimisation under the Act. She said that she was not aware that she needed to do so to make a complaint under the Act.

The Complainant in this case acknowledges that she did not make a protected act as set out at section 74(2) of the Act. It follows that she cannot have been victimised for making such an act.

Having considered the submissions made, the Court finds that the Complainant has failed to establish any facts from which it could be inferred that she was subject to discrimination or victimisation during the cognisable period for the complaint.

As the Complainant has failed to discharge the burden of proof which rests upon her and has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or victimisation, the appeal must fail.

Accordingly, the Decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.

The Court so determines.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
CC	______________________
1 July 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.