Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Guirges Salib

Wingilt Limited t/a Flatley Engineering

Representatives

Self-represented

Leahy Reidy 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-00068937-001

30/01/2025

The complainant is employed as Finance Manager with the respondent, a role he has undertaken since 2017.

The complainant claims that he has been discriminated against on grounds of disability, harassed and victimized.

The respondent disputed the claims and alleged contraventions of the Employment Equality Acts.

The complainant has stage 4 cancer, a disability within the meaning of the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015.  Despite the diagnosis, the complainant remains fully fit for work and, at the time of the hearing, was fulfilling the duties of his role as Finance Manager with the respondent.

The complainant has at all times been fully committed to his work with the respondent, including in and around the time of his cancer diagnosis in January 2022, subsequent hospital admission in February 2022 and during treatment periods.   Apart from a period of approved sick leave from mid-March 2022 to December 2022, the complainant never missed a day of work.  It was important to the complainant that he continue to carry out his work and work his normal work pattern.    The complainant kept the respondent’s General Manager / the complainant’s line manager, Mr Shane Ryan, fully informed of his medical condition and treatment.

The respondent has imputed unfitness to the complainant, and the complainant has been discriminated, harassed and victimized.

The trust between the complainant and the respondent has been breached and the complainant does not feel safe in his workplace.

The complaint form detailed the complainant’s gross monthly pay as €5,259.23.

Summary of complainant’s oral evidence

The complainant’s employment as Finance Manager with the respondent commenced in December 2017.  The complainant reported directly to Mr Ryan, the respondent’s General Manager.  At the times material to this case, the finance team comprised the complainant as Finance Manager, three full-time and one part-time team members, and a new appointment in September 2024.

The complainant outlined the lead up to a cancer diagnosis in January 2022 and how the respondent was initially very supportive of the complainant.

There were no issues of note between the parties until mid-2024.

The complainant had annual leave arranged for May 2024, which it was agreed would be covered by his predecessor/the former Finance Manager.  This person covered the complainant’s absences from work in 2022 and had remained with the respondent on a retainer.   Shortly prior to the complainant going on leave, Mr Ryan told the complainant that he needed to have a back-up plan because of the complainant's health situation.  The complainant did not have an issue with this, but he did not believe a full-time person was necessary on the finance team.  The complainant was in very good health at the time.  The meeting concluded with agreement to get someone to support the team, and the complainant took follow-up action in this regard before he began his annual leave.  The complainant accepted Mr Ryan’s proposal notwithstanding assumptions having been made by Mr Ryan about the complainant’s medical situation and prognosis.  The complainant was at all times very open with Mr Ryan about his health, treatment and health outlook.

On the complainant’s return from annual leave, there was no direct communication between the complainant and Mr Ryan regarding recruitment to the finance team albeit the complainant was aware that interviews were taking place.  The complainant decided not to raise it with Mr Ryan as he did not want for there to be confrontation. He instead adopted a wait and see approach.  The complainant had a long meeting with Mr Ryan concerning financial matters in early July 2024 and there was no mention of the recruitment process or how interviews were going.  In or around the same time, the complainant learned of a candidate having accepted an offer of employment.  It was not until approximately a week later that Mr Ryan discussed this with the complainant. The complainant expressed to Mr Ryan his dissatisfaction with the recruitment process and of having been excluded.   The complainant still hoped at this stage that the new hire was to support the team, but Mr Ryan informed the complainant that the new hire would need to shadow the complainant because they needed to be able to do his job. The complainant believed Mr Ryan’s intentions were good, but he felt insulted and undermined.  At this point, he did not know for certain that the new appointment would be working full-time on the finance team, but he expected they would be.

In the meantime, the complainant had discovered a request by Mr Ryan of 3 July 2024 to add an agenda item to the quarterly management meeting which referred to interviewing for future replacement for the complainant’s role.  

When the new employee commenced employment with the respondent on 1 September 2024, the complainant was unclear about what they were engaged to do and was confused by internal messaging on the subject.   The complainant welcomed the employee and assigned them work covering a team member who was out on sick leave, which he believed was a good opportunity for them. The complainant sensed the other team members were hesitant about giving the new employee work as requested by the complainant, because they knew the employee had been hired to replace the complainant.

In early September, the complainant discovered from the HR platform that the new employee had been engaged on a full-time basis and was reporting to Mr Ryan.  The complainant requested the assistant manager to change the report line to the complainant as it looked like there had been a mistake. 

At a meeting on 23 September 2024, the complainant told Mr Ryan that he was aware of the July agenda item request referring to his replacement.  Mr Ryan was very defensive about it maintaining that the appointment was a good management decision.  The complainant told Mr Ryan at this meeting that he was being discriminated against on grounds of disability and that he rejected Mr Ryan’s medical assumptions about his fitness and ability to work.  The complainant felt unsafe by Mr Ryan’s reference to it being a good management decision.  This meeting did not end well; Mr Ryan was very defensive, and the complainant was very angry.   

The complainant outlined meetings of 30 September and 4 November 2024 with Mr Ryan.  Mr Ryan was insisting the complainant train the new employee in the complainant’s job.  The complainant resisted because this was not what had been agreed, and he told Mr Ryan that he would not train them.   The complainant understood from the meetings that the new employee was a replacement for the complainant because of his health situation.  Mr Ryan expressed dissatisfaction that the complainant was not cooperating with the new employee’s training.  Mr Ryan advised the complainant that he would arrange for the former Finance Manager to train the new employee, and for Ms Brien to assist the new employee.

The complainant was attending counselling at this stage because of the situation in the workplace.

There followed an exchange between the new employee and the complainant in November 2024 during which the complainant advised the new employee that he had no plans to leave.  At a subsequent meeting, requested by the new employee, the complainant again informed the new employee and Mr Ryan that he had no plans to leave and that he was being discriminated against on grounds of disability.  The complainant’s understanding from the meeting was that the new employee would be his replacement, not right then, but at some stage in the future.   The meeting did not go well. 

With Mr Ryan insisting on the complainant training the new employee and the complainant not agreeing to this, there was no outcome or way forward agreed between the complainant and Mr Ryan in November/December 2024.   Relations between the complainant and the new employee deteriorated in this period, and by January 2025 the new employee was not communicating with the complainant.  The complainant informed Mr Ryan in a meeting in January 2025 that he was not ready to discuss the situation, that the situation had resulted in the complainant having a bad Christmas, and that he did not want a rude person on his team. 

The complainant had put up with the situation from July 2024 to January 2025 and the respondent had made not any decision on the situation.  The complainant made contact with the WRC in January 2025.  Upon referral of his claims to the WRC on 28 January 2025, there were no further meetings between Mr Ryan and the complainant in relation to the subject matter of his complaints.  When the complainant returned from a period of annual leave in January 2025, the new employee was not in the office, and he learned on 27 January 2025 that they were no longer working for the respondent company.

The complainant found the whole situation very difficult, and he described the physical and mental impact.

Under cross-examination, the complainant agreed that the complainant’s main issues were the manner in which the new employee had been employed, the new employee’s role in the respondent company and the respondent’s response to concerns raised by the complainant.   The complainant accepted that the respondent told the complainant it was not seeking to replace the complainant and that it had no plans to replace him.  The complainant understood that any replacement was a future event; the respondent expected the complainant to go out sick in the future.   The complainant agreed that the respondent had never sent the complainant for medical examination and that there was great sympathy and support from the respondent’s personnel as regards the complainant and his diagnosis.   The complainant’s view that the respondent had discriminated against him was because of his view that there was no need for the respondent to hire someone else on the finance team.  The complainant and Mr Ryan had reached an agreement that a new hire would support the finance team on a part-time basis, but this is not in fact what transpired. The complainant drafted the job spec for the part-time role, which included parts of the complainant’s role as the complainant understood Mr Ryan’s concerns for the future.  The respondent advertised the role specified by the complainant and this is the role the new employee applied for.  The complainant accepted efforts by personnel in the respondent to reassure the complainant but as the complainant saw it, someone had been brought in and was waiting in the wings to replace the complainant.  The complainant did not accept that he had declined to participate in the recruitment process.  The complainant could not recall Mr Ryan apologizing for his misdescription of the situation in his agenda item request.  The complainant accepted that he was quite open about his health situation in the workplace; the complainant’s issue was with Mr Ryan telling the new employee that the complainant was sick, making assumptions about the complainant’s health and appointing the new employee based on those assumptions.

The complainant continues to work with the respondent in the role of Finance Manager.  The respondent has great respect for the complainant and has fully supported the complainant financially, emotionally and in any way possible since his diagnosis in January 2022. 

The respondent discussed in detail with the complainant in April 2024 its requirements to put in place cover for any period the complainant might be out of work.   The parties differed on whether a part-time or full-time resource was required.  The general manager decided that a full-time employee was required.  The complainant ultimately refused to assist in the employment of the support staff or to assist in any way with their training. 

The respondent refutes the claims against it and submits there is no evidence to support the claims.  At no stage has the respondent taken any steps to replace the complainant, who remains in the respondent’s employment.  Communications could have been more transparent and potentially avoided misunderstanding however this does not warrant findings against the respondent under the Acts.

Evidence of Mr Shane Ryan

The witness is managing director of the respondent. 

From the time of the complainant’s diagnosis in 2021/2022, the respondent’s approach, and the personal approach of the witness, was to look after the complainant and do what it could to support him.

One of the key parts of the complainant’s role and a requirement of the parent/group company is that of monthly and quarterly financial reporting.  The back-up in place for the complainant was the complainant’s predecessor who had retired from the respondent organisation.  The complainant’s predecessor had covered the complainant’s absence in 2022.  In or around March 2024, the complainant’s predecessor informed the witness of her plans to move abroad.  The witness needed to have a plan in place to cover for the complainant and fundamentally that there be another person in the respondent organisation that would be able to complete financial reports.    The witness and complainant agreed on the need to have back-up but disagreed on whether a part-time or full-time resource was required.  The witness discussed with the complainant the recruitment process and the complainant, on more than one occasion, said that he did not want to be part of the process.  The complainant was aware of the type of role the respondent was recruiting for in the summer of 2024, and the witness had thought there was agreement on recruitment of an assistant to the finance team. 

The successful candidate in the recruitment process was interviewed on a number of dates in June/July 2024 and commenced employment with the respondent at the beginning of September 2024. 

Regarding the agenda item of interviewing for future replacement of the complainant’s role, as requested by the witness on 3 July 2024, the witness acknowledged a mistake on his part in not describing it as support for the complainant’s role.  The witness apologised to the complainant for this mistake on 21 July 2024 and subsequently.

A decision to replace the complainant could not have been taken by the witness, rather it would have required sanction beyond the witness.

It was clear in meetings in September 2024 that the complainant was not happy.  The complainant refused to train the new employee.  The witness came up with a work-around whereby the complainant’s predecessor trained the new employee and for the complainant to work from home when the training was taking place.  Everything blew up in a meeting with the new employee and the complainant in mid-November 2024.  After the meeting, the complainant apologised to the witness for his behaviour at the meeting and the witness tried to explain to the complainant how matters had got out of control and to explain the priority of having someone trained on the reports for the group company.  The complainant requested things be put off until after Christmas and the witness agreed to this.  In January 2025, the complainant told the witness he would not work with a rude person on his team. 

The new employee did not ultimately work out and they are no longer employed by the respondent.  

Evidence of Ms Nicole Brien

The witness has worked as an assistant to the complainant since 2017.

The witness was heavily involved in the recruitment of the new employee.  She had liaised with the recruitment agency in relation to a new role on the respondent’s finance team.  The recruitment agency was sending CVs to the witness which she in turn was sharing with relevant personnel, including the complainant.

The complainant would not train the new employee on the finance team and did not have much direct dealings with them. 

The complainant has been employed as Finance Manager with the respondent since December 2017.  The complainant has stage 4 cancer.  Save for a period of approved sick leave from mid-March to 1 December 2022, the complainant has been fit for work and has fully undertaken the duties attaching to his position.  This remained the case in the timeframe material to the claims the subject of this adjudication and at the time of the hearing in August 2025.  The complainant’s competence and capability of undertaking the duties attached to the role were not in issue and are not a feature or the subject of this adjudication.  

The complainant’s commitment to the respondent company, his endeavours and conscientiousness in his role were very clear to me.  The respondent’s support of the complainant in and around the time of his diagnosis in January 2022, and subsequently, was also plainly evident.  The relationship between the parties was sound and mutually beneficial up until actions taken by the respondent further to a discussion between the respondent’s General Manager/Managing Director, Mr Shane Ryan, and the complainant in May 2024. 

The claims of discrimination, harassment and victimisation referred to the WRC on 30 January 2025 under section 77 of the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015 (the “Acts”), arise from the respondent’s recruitment of a new employee (“AB”) to the finance team in the summer of 2024.  The complainant was not involved in the recruitment of AB and it was the complainant’s evidence that he did not believe there a need to hire anyone else on the finance team. 

The essence of the complainant’s claims of discrimination on grounds of disability and of imputed unfitness is that the respondent appointed AB because of the complainant’s diagnosis/disability, at a time when neither the complainant nor the finance team required support.  The complainant submitted that there was no reason for the appointment and that the respondent’s concerns about something happening to the complainant based on his diagnosis were without foundation. 

The Legal Framework

The Acts prohibit discrimination in employment-related areas on nine protected grounds, of which disability is one. 

As per section 6(1) of the Acts, discrimination occurs 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.”

Section 6(2) sets out the discriminatory grounds for the purposes of the Acts, with the disability ground being that as between any 2 persons “that one is a person with a disability and the other either is not or is a person with a different disability”.

Section 8(1) of the Acts prohibits discrimination by an employer against an employee in the specific area of conditions of employment generally, and section 8(6) provides:-

“Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), an employer shall be taken to discriminate against an employee or prospective employee in relation to conditions of employment if, on any of the discriminatory grounds, the employer does not offer or afford to that employee or prospective employee or to a class of persons of whom he or she is one –

(a)   the same terms of employment (other than remuneration and pension rights),

(b)   the same working conditions, and

(c)    the same treatment in relation to overtime, shift work, short time, transfers, lay-offs, redundancies, dismissals and disciplinary measures,

as the employer offers or affords to another person or class of persons, where the circumstances in which both such persons or classes are or would be employed are not materially different.”

Harassment is defined in section 14A(7) of the Acts as:

“(a) …

(i)               … any form of unwanted conduct related to any of the discriminatory grounds, and

(ii)              references to sexual harassment are to any form of unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature,

(b) being conduct which in either case has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the person.

(c) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a), such unwanted conduct may consist of acts, requests, spoken words, gestures or the production, display or circulation of written words, pictures or other material.”

Section 74(2) of the Acts concerns victimisation, and provides for it occurring 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.”

Section 85A of the Acts provides as follows in relation to the burden of proof on a complainant:-

“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.”

Application of the Law

The matter for adjudication is whether the complainant was discriminated on grounds of disability, harassed and/or victimised by the respondent in contravention of the Acts in and around its recruitment of AB to the finance team, and alleged assumptions and expectations on the part of the respondent about the complainant’s medical situation and prognosis.

Discrimination

Discrimination on grounds of disability occurs where a person with a disability is treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated, where the other person is a person without a disability or a person with a different disability. 

It was not in dispute that the complainant has a disability within the meaning of the Acts at the time material to these claims.  I am satisfied that the complainant enjoys the protection of the Acts based either on his diagnosis and the definition of disability in section 2 of the Acts, or by virtue of the definition in section 6(1) of the Acts covering as it does a disability which may exist in the future or is imputed to the person concerned.

I find however that the complainant has not established a prima facie case of discrimination on grounds of disability in relation to conditions of employment based on the following facts and reasoning.

The respondent determined a new hire on the Finance team was necessary to ensure sufficient back-up and support resources.  The complainant and Mr Ryan discussed the subject of a new hire in or around April/May 2024.  The complainant’s evidence was that he disagreed with Mr Ryan that an additional resource was required and further whether that resource should be full-time or part-time.  However, having regard to the totality of the evidence before me and the complainant’s written submissions, I find that the complainant agreed with the respondent’s need to have a back-up plan, and where they disagreed was in relation to whether the additional resource required was that of a part-time or full-time hire to the finance team.  The documentary evidence of engagement with recruiters reflects the complainant referring to a new hire of accounts assistant and Mr Ryan referring to a financial controller role.  Notwithstanding the complainant’s submissions that the respondent had actively recruited for the complainant’s role of Finance Manager, the complainant’s evidence was that he developed the job specification for the new hire that was sent to the recruiter, which specification recognised the need for the new hire to be trained on preparing the complainant’s financial reports in the event of absence.   The complainant accepted that he drafted AB’s contract of employment in which it was stated they were employed as Assistant Finance Manager.  This also aligns with documentary evidence of exchanges between the respondent and an employment agency which refers to a new role in the respondent.  I further note the complainant’s evidence that he understood the new employee was not employed to replace him, but rather the issue was with Mr Ryan’s failure to consult with the complainant first regarding the appointment and securing the complainant’s agreement on same.

The respondent took a decision on resourcing which the complainant did not agree with.  There was no change to the complainant’s role in employment, nor am I satisfied on the evidence that the respondent’s actions amounted to replacement or sidelining of the complainant in his role.  On the complainant’s account, I find that the employment of AB was an action taken by the respondent to future-proof the finance function. 

I find that the respondent’s decision to employ a new employee on the finance team was a decision taken having regard to a number of factors, which included the complainant’s diagnosis.  I am not satisfied that the respondent’s taking account of the complainant’s diagnosis/health in making decisions on resourcing and operations constituted discrimination of the complainant on grounds of disability in relation to conditions of employment.  It was common case that the complainant continued to carry out his role as Finance Manager, that AB was employed as Assistant Finance Manager and that, apart from the request that the complainant train AB on aspects of his role, there was no material change to the fundamentals of the complainant’s role with the respondent on the employment of AB.

I note submissions on behalf of the respondent that the issues that have arisen are due to a lack of communication and engagement by both parties.  I find that the non-involvement of the complainant in the recruitment process, the lack of direct communication between Mr Ryan and the complainant and information sharing by Mr Ryan in relation to the recruitment process and appointment of AB resulted in the complainant receiving indirect information on same, and further that it contributed to the complainant’s unease, sense of distrust and of being undermined.  The evidence indicates both parties having initially avoided any direct discussion on AB’s employment.  The evidence was of an unproductive, strained and unprofessional working relationship between the complainant and AB.  In my view, this was fuelled by some insensitive and misplaced internal communications relating to AB’s recruitment and appointment, including the agenda item of July 2024.

In conclusion, I am not satisfied that the respondent’s recruitment of an Assistant Finance Manager, in the absence of the complainant’s agreement, constituted discrimination against the complainant in contravention of the Acts.  The respondent’s evidence was of a developing and expanding business and I do not find that its decisions on resourcing, including those relating to succession planning, constituted less favourable treatment of the complainant on grounds of disability than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation.

Harassment

In the WRC complaint form, the complainant submitted harassment related to disability in the context of conversations between the complainant and AB during which the complainant submitted that AB referred to the complainant’s medical condition, that they were there to replace the complainant and take over his role when the complainant passed away.  It was submitted by the complainant that AB’s repeated comments about his eventual demise arising from his medical condition amounted to harassment and was distressing for the complainant.  The admissible evidence of the complainant’s interactions with AB related mostly to the complainant’s assignment of work to AB, and AB not working by or accepting the complainant’s instructions.  The complainant was also clear in his evidence that he declined to train the complainant because he disagreed with their appointment.

The essential characteristics of harassment within the meaning of the Acts is that the conduct is unwanted, related to a discriminatory ground, having either the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the person.   The test is a subjective one, reinforced by provision not only for the purpose of the impugned conduct but also its effect.

The onus is on the complainant to establish, on the balance of probabilities, the harassment alleged, which includes that the conduct complained of.

By virtue of section 14A and section 15, the Acts fix an employer with liability for the wrongful conduct of their employees.

The evidence did not establish the conduct alleged in the written submissions, as set out above, I do however find the complainant’s undisputed evidence of what occurred and was discussed at the meeting of 14 November 2024 to constitute unwanted conduct related to disability which had the effect of violating the complainant’s dignity and creating a humiliating and offensive environment for the complainant.  The complainant’s evidence was of asking Mr Ryan about AB saying they were the complainant’s replacement and Mr Ryan acknowledging this had been said and that it was a mistake.   The evidence in relation to Mr Ryan referring to the complainant’s condition and health at this meeting with AB was also not disputed by the respondent’s evidence.  

Mr Ryan in his oral evidence acknowledged a mistake in his choice of words in an email of 3 July 2024.  Although the complainant could not recall Mr Ryan apologising for this, I accept that the words used were mistaken or careless particularly having regard to the evidence that the agenda item was subsequently amended and not addressed at the meeting.  Nevertheless, I am satisfied that the email to the complainant’s colleagues with the requested addition to the agenda does amount to unwanted conduct related to disability which had the effect of violating the complainant’s dignity and creating a humiliating or offensive environment for the complainant.

I further find that the defence afforded under section 14(A)(2) of the Acts cannot be successfully invoked by the respondent in this case as I am not satisfied of steps taken to prevent the impugned conduct.

I therefore find that the complainant was harassed within the meaning of section 14A of the Acts in the cognisable period provided for in section 77(5)(a) of the Acts in relation to the following:-

       i.          the respondent’s communications referable to AB’s recruitment as the complainant’s replacement, and

      ii.          the email of 3 July 2024 requesting the addition of a meeting agenda item referring to the complainant’s role.

Victimisation

Victimisation protects employees who raise or address discrimination in the workplace from retaliatory action.

There are three components which must be present for a claim of victimisation under the Acts to be made out:-

i.          the complainant must have undertaken a protected act of a type referred to at paragraphs (a)-(g) of section 74(2),

ii.          the complainant must have been subjected to adverse treatment by their employer, and

iii.          the adverse treatment must be in reaction to the protected act having been taken by the complainant.

The complainant’s evidence in relation to a meeting with Mr Ryan in September 2024 was of expressing his view that the hire of AB and assumptions made by Mr Ryan about the complainant’s medical situation constituted discrimination of the complainant on grounds of disability.  The complainant’s evidence was of making further reference to discrimination at a meeting in November 2024 with Mr Ryan and AB.  Whilst it was put to the complainant that the respondent disputed the complainant having made any reference to discrimination, the complainant’s evidence in this regard was not disputed by the respondent’s witnesses.  Notwithstanding, undertaking a protected act does not in and of itself dispose of the matter.  There was no evidence before me of adverse treatment of the complainant as a reaction to the foregoing.  When the complainant raised his views with Mr Ryan, which included an objection to training AB and feeling very stressed, Mr Ryan’s response was to put in place a workaround in relation to AB’s training in the finance function and to have AB assist another team member.  By January 2025, there was no functioning professional relationship between AB and the complainant.  The information before me is that AB ceased working in the respondent company sometime in January 2025.  The complainant confirmed at the hearing that he continues to fulfil the role of Finance Manager with the respondent.  

Based on the foregoing, I am not therefore satisfied of facts to support the claim of victimisation within the meaning of section 74 of the Acts.

I therefore find the complainant was not victimised by the respondent in contravention of the Acts.

I find that the claim of harassment in contravention of section 14A of the Acts is well founded and consider it appropriate to make an order that the respondent pay the complainant compensation for the effects of same in the sum of €6,000.00.  This award taken into account the nature of the conduct, the avoidant behaviour of both parties in relation to the underlying issues, and the effects on the complainant.

I find that the claims of discrimination and victimisation in contravention of the Acts are not well founded.

Employment Equality Acts – Discrimination – Harassment – Victimisation – Disability