Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Cathy  Hall

Sonas Nursing Home Limited

Representatives

Self-represented 

Barry O’Mahony BL, instructed by ARAG Legal Protection

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 86 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00077194-001

05/11/2025

The complainant submitted a complaint to the WRC under section 86 of the Employment Equality Act that a provision of a collective agreement breached the Act.

The respondent denies the complaint in full.

Preliminary Issue

At the commencement of the hearing, the complainant clarified the nature of her complaint. This clarity was required due to the respondent application that the complaint was misconceived. The WRC Complaint Form submitted stated that ‘An employment agreement contains a provision that is discriminatory.’

The narrative section of the WRC Complaint Form stated-

‘I received a written warning and I’m not quite sure for what and he put a list of accusations to me which are all untrue and unfounded. I got a solicitors letter sent to him and they are refusing to engage with the solicitor I need that written warning removed from my file as its all based on lies and all seems to have generated from a letter I wrote to him about his attitude towards me and other members of staff at a kitchen meeting.’

Ms. Hall made a written submission of fourteen pages to the WRC in advance of the hearing.

When asked about the nature of her complaint, Ms. Hall said she did not understand what a collective agreement was and that when she submitted the complaint, she was very upset. She said the complaint was a discrimination complaint under the Employment Equality Act based on gender. She added that she would be relying on incidents at meetings in July & September 2025 which were described in her fourteen-page written submission. She also referred to an earlier incident in April 2025 and that she was treated differently to other staff.

The complainant was offered and accepted an adjournment so that she could respond fully to the respondent application that the complaint was misconceived. She was asked to outline the alleged incidents of gender discrimination on the complaint form or in the written submissions made.

On resumption of the hearing, the complainant said she believed she was discriminated against as she was treated differently to all staff including male staff.

As reference was made on the complaint form to a solicitor’s letter, Ms. Hall was asked to bring to the Adjudicator’s attention any references or incidents of gender discrimination. Ms. Hall replied that she thought something was going on and it was still discrimination.  

Mr. O’Mahony raised preliminary matters that the complainant had not referred to any collective agreement on her complaint form or in her written submission. He submitted that it was an unstateable case which could not succeed and therefore should not be allowed continue.

Without prejudice to this, it was submitted that the complaint form or the written submissions did not contain any reference to gender discrimination. Given these facts, it was submitted that the complaint was misconceived and must fail.

The Law

Dismissal of claim.

77A.—(1) The Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission may dismiss a claim at any stage if of opinion that it has been made in bad faith or is frivolous, vexatious or misconceived or relates to a trivial matter.

(2) (a) Not later than 42 days after the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission dismisses a claim under this section, the complainant may appeal against the decision to the Labour Court on notice to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission specifying the grounds of the appeal.

(b) On the appeal the Labour Court may affirm or quash the decision.

79.- (3A) If, in a case which is referred to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77, a question arises relating to the entitlement of any party to bring or contest proceedings under that section, including:

(a) whether the complainant has complied with the statutory requirements relating to such referrals,

(b) whether the discrimination or victimisation concerned occurred on or after 18 October 1999,

(c) whether the complainant is an employee, or

(d) any other related question of law or fact,

the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission may direct that the question be investigated as a preliminary issue and shall proceed accordingly.

Finding

At the conclusion of the hearing on the preliminary matters, the parties were advised that these needed to be considered, in the first instance. A decision would then issue, or the case re-convened depending on these considerations.

Prior to the hearing, I read the complainant’s submissions, and it became apparent that the nature of the complaint was unclear. Adjudication Officers can only consider matters which are strictly within the statutory framework of the complaint made. As a lay litigant, the complainant was allowed considerable latitude to describe her complaint. Although she had referred a complaint on a collective agreement, this can be saved if the narrative on the form outlines sufficiently the nature of the complaint. The complaint form failed to provide that clarity although referred to an earlier solicitor’s letter sent to the respondent. This even along with the written submission provided insufficient clarity of an equality complaint. The complainant’s case at its height is that she was unfairly treated. In the supporting documentation there is no reference to discriminatory treatment or gender. Although this was clarified at the hearing, the case as described is clearly a grievance. The complaint as outlined could not result in a successful outcome under the Employment Equality Act. It is common case, as per section 77A and 79 of the Act, that cases can be considered at a preliminary stage, particularly where they are likely to save time and costs for parties.

Mr. Mahony relied on Ewing v. Ireland [IESC] 44 at paragraph 23-

‘There is no duty to allow the continuance of unstateable cases to full hearing’  

Although Adjudication Officers do not have inherent jurisdiction to dismiss cases like the higher courts, section 77A & 79 of the Act provide for matters to be dealt with at preliminary stage where necessary.

For the reasons outlined, I decide to dismiss the complaint as it is misconceived.   

I decide to dismiss the complaint as it is misconceived.  

Misconceived complaint