Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Martin  King

Petrogas Group Ltd.

Representatives

Self-Represented

David O’Riordan Sherwin O'Riordan

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00067645-001

25/11/2024

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The complainant and three witnesses for the respondent undertook to give their evidence under affirmation.

At the completion of the hearing, I took the time to review all the oral evidence together with the written submissions made by the parties. The respective positions of the parties are noted, and a broad outline of the evidence and cross examination is provided.  I am not required to provide a line-by-line assessment of the evidence and submissions that I have rejected or deemed superfluous to the main findings.  I am guided by the reasoning in Faulkner v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107 where it was held that a

“…minute analysis or reasons are not required to be given by administrative tribunals...the duty on administrative tribunals to give reasons in their decisions is not a particularly onerous one.  Only broad reasons need be given…”.

The complainant submitted that he was discriminated against on the grounds of disability by the respondent.  He outlined a series of situations and comments that were made from October 2022 until March 2024.  He submitted that thereafter a management position became vacant.  He submitted that in October 2024 he sought a pay rise and was told that he would be getting one in January 2025.

In evidence he outlined a disability which was not the one mentioned in any of the documentation submitted to the WRC or the respondent prior to the hearing. He stated that he applied for a supervisory management course but was not aware that it was reserved for full time staff.  He was employed on a part-time basis.  He stated that he did not apply for a full-time position when one became available.

Under cross examination the complainant admitted that “not much has happened during the six-month period” and confirmed that his complaints are ‘mostly historic’ and other things that happened after he made his complaint.  He did not provide further detail.

The respondent submitted that there was no case to be answered in that the complainant has not raised facts from which it may be presumed that discrimination has occurred.

As to the allegation that the complainant was not allowed to attend a course because he worked part-time, the respondent submitted that the complainant removed himself from the training course.

The respondent submitted that in relation to the failure to provide reasonable accommodation, it had offered to meet with the complainant to discuss any disability that he had and what accommodations they could provide on two occasions, but he refused to attend the meetings.

His nonattendance at these meeting was considered to amount to a failure to comply with a reasonable management request and was dealt with under the disciplinary procedure.  He was ultimately given a written warning for this infraction.  The respondent noted that it had previously agreed to the complainant’s use of a stool to assist him in undertaking the tasks assigned to him.

The respondent submitted that it has no case to answer, the complainant has provided no detail regarding his allegations and the disability he outlined was never brought to their attention prior to the hearing.

The

The period under consideration for the purposes of taking a complaint under the Employment Equality Act is six months, as provided for under the Act.  No extension to that period was sought prior to or during the hearing.

This is outlined in Section 77(5)(a) & (b) which state as follows:

(a) Subject to paragraph (b), a claim for redress in respect of discrimination or victimisation may not be referred under this section after the end of 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.

(b) On application by a complainant the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission or Circuit Court, as the case may be, may, for reasonable cause, direct that in relation to the complainant paragraph (a) shall have effect as if for the reference to a period of 6 months there were substituted a reference to such period not exceeding 12 months as is specified in the direction; and, where such a direction is given, this Part shall have effect accordingly.

The complainant noted one disability in his complaint form but outlined a completely different disability at the hearing.

Although I am satisfied that the disability outlined by the complainant at the hearing would fall within the broad definition of a disability under the Act, I find that the respondent was not made aware of the existence of this disability prior to the hearing of this matter.

During the cognisable period, the complainant was offered two meetings to discuss his needs arising from his disabilities, but he refused to attend those meetings nor to discuss matters.  Arising from this it is difficult to see how the respondent refused to consider reasonable accommodation, on the contrary it appears that the complainant refused to discuss the matter with his employer.  Therefore, I find that the complainant did not seek any accommodation from the respondent during the period in question.

The complainant stated that he was refused any training, However the respondent noted that the complainant removed himself from the training course that he was rostered to attend.  This was confirmed by the complainant.

In relation to the cognisable period covering this complaint, the complainant admitted that “not much has happened during that period, it was mostly historic, and from after the complaint was made”.  The complainant stated that his employer tried to get him to sign documentation to enable his return to work.  It was pointed out to the complainant that no complaint of victimisation was raised prior to the hearing or in any documentation.  The matter was outside the time limited scope of the present complaint.  It was pointed out to the complainant that he was still within the period for taking a further complaint should he wish to do so.

Section 85A(1) of the Act provides that “Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a complainant from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination in relation to him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.”

In the case of Valpeters v. Melbury Developments Ltd [2010] ELR 64, the Labour Court held that a complaint being put forward by a complainant must rise above a certain threshold and must not simply amount to ‘mere speculation’:

“Mere speculation or assertions, unsupported by evidence, cannot be elevated to a factual basis upon which an inference of discrimination can be drawn”.

To my mind the argument that has been put forward by the complainant to support his claim amounts to mere speculation.  Therefore, having considered the limited evidence presented to me, I find that the complainant has not established facts from which discrimination may be presumed.

The complainant has not presented evidence that a breach of the Employment Equality Act took place during the period under consideration, the cognisable period, for this complaint.  Accordingly, I find that the complainant has not presented any evidence that discrimination took place during the reference period for this complaint and accordingly, was not discriminated against in respect of this complaint.

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complainant was not discriminated against.

Employment Equality – reference period of complaint – cognisable period – no evidence of discrimination presented