Anonymised Parties

A Nurse/Manager

A Clinical Centre

Representatives

  Self Represented

Shane MacSweeney & Company Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00070997-001

17/04/2025

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

CA-00070997-003

17/04/2025

The Complainant is employed as a SCM Manager/Nurse and lodged a complaint she had been unfairly dismissed and that she was discriminated against under equality legislation.. The Respondent contested that any termination of employment had taken place and because no details of an equality complaint were supplied by the Complainant that it had no equality case to meet.

The Complainant was employed from July 28th 2021. The Complainant did not identify a termination date in her complaint form and in follow up by the WRC she advised her termination date as January 1st 2025. However on examination of this issue at the Hearing what the Complainant was referring to was the date she was moved from her role to a new location.

The Complainant alleged she had been treated unequally and discriminated against when she was moved from her role following an investigation. She did not specify any discrimination ground (of the nine covered by the Act) in her complaint form but stated she was victimised and harassed. In her submission. In advance of the Hearing the Complainant submitted a document which had headings but no detail of the alleged equality discrimination.  At the Hearing the Complainant set out that her discrimination issue was with being replaced by other staff members who she felt were not suitable for the role.

The Respondent denied that the Complainant was either dismissed or had resigned and the claim under the Unfair Dismissal Act was misconceived. The Respondent stated that the Complainant was moved from her role following a detailed investigation after allegations were received and that patient safety was a priority for the Respondent. The Complainant was on sick leave for some months since the conclusion of the Investigation. A role at the same rate of pay and hours was offed to the Complainant at the time of the decision to move the Complainant and was still available to the Complainant should she wish to return to work once her period of sick leave is over. The Respondent stated that the Complainant had continued to supply medical certificates until May 2025 some 5 months after her now stated termination date thus confirming she understood herself to still be an employee of the Respondent beyond her stated termination date.

The Respondent stated as the Complainant had not set out a case under the Equality Act it had no case to respond to.

The Respondent stated the Complainant was well regarded and they would welcome her back to the assigned role.

Following the Investigation the Company Doctor recommended that the Complainant undergo a series of psychotherapy treatments. At the time of the Hearing the Complainant had completed one session of six recommended and her attendance appears to have stalled pending the WRC Hearing.

At the Hearing the Adjudicator set out the requirements to proceed under both sets of legislation and that there were specific events or types of discrimination required to pursue claims under the Equality Act. Based on the information supplied to the Hearing the Complainant was neither dismissed or resigned her employment and continues to be an employee of the Respondent, albeit on sick leave. Her case centred around the transfer to a different role following an Investigation

The Complainant was asked to set out her equality complaint and stated she was discriminated against as a result of an Investigation report which planned to move her from one location to another location. No discriminatory ground that met the requirement of the Equality Act were set out at the Hearing.

It is unfortunate that the Complainant does not wish to accept the findings of the Investigation and appears to be stuck in a conflict with the Respondent which does not appear to be doing her any good. She should consider completing the course of psychotherapy provided which may assist her see things in a different light.

Given that medical treatment of a sensitive nature was disclosed at the Hearing I have decided to use my powers to anonymise this Decision.

Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act. I find that the Complainant has not been dismissed or resigned and her unfair dismissal complaint is misconceived. CA-00070997-001

Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act. I find that no act of discrimination that met the requirements of the Act were put forward by the Complainant and she was not discriminated against. CA-00070997-003.

Unfair dismissal