Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Margaret  O'Leary

Southside Travellers Action Group

Representatives

AMOSS 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-00071917-001

27/05/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 19 of the Carer's Leave Act 2001

CA-00071917-002

27/05/2025

The complainant, Margaret O’Leary is a Primary Health Care Manager, with the Southside Traveller Action Group, an organisation funded to support community and Traveller engagement initiatives.

 In June 2024 she submitted a Carer’s Leave application with the respondent’s Finance Officer, who stamped and signed the form and forwarded it to the Department of Social Protection. She discussed the application verbally with the Director, who confirmed that the leave “shouldn’t be a problem.”

She did receive the Carer’s Allowance but is uncertain when this actually happened.

She was then advised by management that she had not followed the correct procedure for the Carer’s Leave application and in due course the chairperson contacted her regarding this issue.

In September 2024, the respondent commenced an investigation into her Carer’s Leave There was a suggestion that her application had been defective,  and the respondent refused to engage with or acknowledge her union representative. Her request to work from home while being investigated was denied. A co-worker, not a traveller was allowed representation by her union official.

Between September and December 2024, she continued to attend at her workplace and in December 2024, a second investigation was initiated without terms of reference or any written notice to her of the allegations.

In February 2025 the outcome of the investigation into her Carer’s Leave was published and the case was closed without disciplinary sanctions.

The respondent  failed to investigate two other settled community staff members, allegedly stating that they did not have strong evidence to challenge a claim that her leave had been authorised.

In June  2025, she submitted a formal grievance against the Chairperson and Director for accusing her of what she describes as fraud, initiating an unfounded investigation, and for her treatment in the workplace. Later that month, she withdrew the grievance against the Director only.

Based on the above she believes this represented procedural unfairness,  discrimination and exclusion and caused her emotional distress, damage to her professional reputation, and stress.

She gave her evidence on affirmation.

The complainant confirmed the above details in oral evidence.

In respect of the complaint under the Employment Equality Act she said there were three distinct alleged breaches.

The first relates to the respondent's decision to initiate an investigation in September 2024 and to engage in a second investigation in December of that year.

The second relates to her request for working from home also in September when she says a member of the employee who was a member of the settled community was facilitated in this regard.

Finally, she says her overall treatment throughout the investigation represented discrimination against her.

In respect of the complaint under the cares leave act she confirmed that she had not made any complaint under that act and the only issue that arose in that regard was her application for carers leave. She says that the active retaliation was the decision to hold the investigation in September 2024.

The respondent says that the complainant has failed to particularise her case and to identify prima facie breaches of the Employment Equality Act and that both complaints should be dismissed.

Specifically, the respondent says that the decision to undertake an investigation cannot, of itself, represent an act of penalisation especially as, on conclusion of the investigation, no adverse findings were made against the complainant.

The respondent also submits that the chairperson of the respondent acted on incorrect information when she told the complainant that it did not recognise trade unions. Others of the complainant’s co-workers are represented by their union. This was a simple error based on a misunderstanding and not related to the complainant’s status as a member of the traveller community.

In response to the complaint about alleged denial of the complainant's right to work from home no request had been made in September 2024.

When this arose in March 2025 it was agreed because the complainant had submitted a grievance against her director and the chairperson, she was granted the right to work from home on the same basis as the purported comparator had previously been.

In relation to the Carer’s Leave Act penalisation case the incident alleged to represent the act of penalisation took place in September 2024 and the complaint was submitted to the WRC on May 27th, 2025. Therefore, it does not arise within the cognisable period and is not within jurisdiction.

The complainant’s grievance about the Carer’s Leave Act application and ensuing events suffuses all the complaints made to the WRC.

It grounds the complaint under that Act and the events following it give rise to the incidents on which her complaint under the Employment Equality Acts is based.

Turning to the Carer’s Leave Act first the relevant Section is Section 16.

16.—(1) An employer shall not penalise an employee for proposing to exercise or having exercised his or her entitlement to carer’s leave.

(2) Penalisation of an employee includes—

(a) dismissal of the employee.

(b) unfair treatment of the employee, including selection for redundancy, and

(c) an unfavourable change in the conditions of employment of the employee.

It is clear from this that there must be some significant detriment to the employee, some adverse action and that it is in retaliation for the exercise of rights under the Act.

In this case, the respondent initiated an investigation because it apparently believed that the complainant had put incorrect information on her application. It, the respondent, was implicated as one of its employees had signed and validated the application form.

The investigation took place and despite the complainant’s various criticisms of how it was conducted it concluded and reported in February 2025.

It reached no adverse conclusions about the complainant and there was no sanction.

On these facts I find that the proscription on penalisation does not extend to protection of an employee who is alleged to have committed wrongdoing in making the application under the Act (but as noted, was ultimately cleared of any suggestion of this).

In other words, she was not penalised for the exercise of her rights under the Act but investigated to establish whether she had implicated her employer in placing inaccurate or erroneous material in the letter of application.

The corollary, that a person may not be subject to investigation even in a case of serious wrongdoing in making an application (which I repeat is not the case here) because of the bar on penalisation would be absurd.

The further submission by the respondent that the alleged act of penalisation took place outside the cognisable period for making a complaint was also considered at the hearing.

The complainant somewhat weakly argued that she only became aware of the significance of the investigation after it had concluded.

Specifically, she did not make any complaint at the level of the workplace about matters she now complains about (the lack of Terms of Reference etc.) at any time until June 2025 (which postdates the referral to the WRC). More significantly, she stated unequivocally in her sworn evidence that it was the September date that grounded her complaint.

Accordingly, this complaint is not within jurisdiction and is not well founded.

She fares no better with the complaints under the Employment Equality Act.

The submission that the decision to hold an investigation of itself can represent an act of less favourable treatment would be a difficult one to make at the best of times and in this case was not supported by any credible evidence.

The same is true of the other alleged breaches; the refusal to grant her trade union representation or work from home.

The complainant has sought to shoehorn a selection of grievances against her employer into an equality complaint. They would have been more properly dealt with through the respondent‘s grievance machinery

It is entirely misconceived and the complaints under both statutes fail.

The complainant has not made out a prima facie case under Complaint CA-00071917-001 and is not upheld and Complaint CA-00071917-002 under the Carer’s Leave Act, 2001 is not well founded.