Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Dragan Yovanovski

Musgrave Limited t/a Musgrave Wholesale Partners

Representatives

Self-represented

Ibec

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-00061476-001

03/01/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 81E of the Pensions Act 1990 as amended by the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004

CA-00061476-002

03/01/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 21 Equal Status Act 2000

CA-00061476-003

03/01/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 18 of the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act 1996

CA-00061476-004

03/01/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act 2005

CA-00061476-005

03/01/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 62(2) of the Charities Act 2009

CA-00061476-006

03/01/2024

At the hearing on 22 January 2026, the complainant advised that he wished to proceed with the case under the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015 and the complaint of penalisation contrary to the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act 2005.

The complainant confirmed the contents of a written submission, submitted on his behalf on 21 September 2025, as accurately reflecting the complainant’s position and the withdrawal of CA-00061476-002, CA-00061476-003, CA-00061476-004 and CA-00061476-006.

The complainant was certified unfit for work from July 2020, and his employment with the respondent terminated on 15 July 2024 by reason of the complainant reaching the contractual retirement age.

There was no need for a preliminary hearing as the respondent was aware in advance of the first hearing date of the two complaints being pursued by the complainant.  The respondent knows the case against them, and the complainant relies on facts made known to the respondent during its investigation of the complainant’s grievances.

There is no statutory provision that precludes the complainant pursuing complaints under the Employment Equality Act 1998 and the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act 2005.  Section 101 and section 101A of the Employment Equality Act 1998 do not apply.  The case law cited by the respondent is not relevant to the statutory claims.

In relation to time limits, the complainant relies on section 77(5)(a) of the Employment Equality Act 1998 in circumstances where the discrimination occurred over an extended period of time and consists of a series of acts which are connected in such a way as to constitute a continuum of discrimination.   The most recent date of the offending conduct took place on 11 August 2023 when the respondent’s operations manager concluded no wrongdoing on his review of the complainant’s complaints.  The complainant had lodged multiple complaints and there was considerable delay on the part of the respondent before it issued its findings and conclusions on 11 August 2023.  The acts constituting penalisation within the meaning of section 27 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act 2005 extended over a period of time up until 11 August 2023 and are the same acts and events that are relied on by the complainant in his case under the Employment Equality Act 1998.   The penalisation occurred by reason of the complainant undertaking a protected act when he reported a safety issue following an accident at work and exercised his right to claim compensation for injury suffered.

The burden of proof on the complainant is discharged, and it is for the respondent to rebut same.

The delay and manner in which the investigation was conducted and the complainant’s grievances considered by the respondent constitutes acts of discrimination, penalisation, victimisation and intimidation.  The respondent’s grievance policy provides for timely and effective examination of complaints, with the different stages time bound.  The procedure provides for referral to an appropriate third party if the employee feels the response following the final stage is inadequate. 

The complainant put his complaint in writing by email dated 11 June 2021.  A meeting originally scheduled to investigate the complaints in June 2021 was not rescheduled by the respondent until 8 May 2023, following the complainant’s enquiry of 30 March 2023.  The respondent decided to delay the investigation process, ignore the complainant’s complaints and responded to them only upon being forced to do so. 

Preliminary submission

The respondent fully disputes the complaints referred against it and requests determination of the preliminary issues in the first instance.

The complainant failed to particularise each of the complaints referred to the Commission and to file timely submissions.  In consequence, the respondent is prejudiced in its defence of the complaints.  Basic factual information is the minimum required for the complainant to substantiate his allegations.

The same set of facts ground the complainant’s claims of discrimination and victimisation under the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015 and the complainant’s complaint of penalisation contrary to the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act 2005.  A grievance raised by the complainant is at the centre of both actions, which are duplicate proceedings

The cognisable period for each complaint is 3 July 2023 to 3 January 2024.  The documentation submitted by the complainant with the WRC complaint referral form pertains to a grievance raised by the complainant under the respondent’s grievance policy in April 2023.

Without prejudice to submissions regarding a prima facie case, the substantive allegations of discrimination, victimisation and penalisation pertain to an absence-management process involving the complainant in 2021, along with allegations that he did not receive sick pay during an absence in 2020, alleged bullying and harassment in 2020 and 2021, and that the respondent allegedly failed to respond to the complainant’s grievance.   The entirety of the allegations is far beyond the statutory timeframes for referral of complaints to the Commission, and there is no reasonable cause for an extension of the relevant statutory timeframes. 

The issuing of a grievance outcome does not constitute an act of penalisation contrary to the 2005 or of discrimination or other prohibited conduct under the 1998 Act.

The complainant had a workplace accident on 22 July 2020.  He was on certified sick leave from 23 July 2020 until the termination of his employment on 2 July 2024.

On the complainant’s account, the complainant requested a meeting with HR in July 2020 about a problem he had with his line manager and did not receive a response.  The complainant complains of harassment when he attended the workplace in July 2020 with a sick leave certificate, and of further issues with a manager and a HR official when he attended absence meetings in the workplace.   The complainant submits that he raised written and oral complaints with the respondent but did not receive a response.     

On my review of the documentation, the complainant outlined an alleged incident in November 2020 at an attendance management meeting in December 2020.    The complainant made a complaint of bullying and harassment against a named manager on 23 April 2021 to a HR official, in which he also referred to his request for a meeting with HR in July 2020 about the conduct of a different manager.   The April 2021 complaint referred to steadily recurring unwanted harassment and intimidation by the named manager since 2020.  It also raised an issue concerning the conduct of the manager and the HR official at a meeting on 24 March 2021 and all the complainant’s complaints and/or grievances not being responded to.  By email dated 11 June 2021, the complainant submitted a written statement in respect of the November 2020 incident, which he had raised with HR in December 2020.  The complainant did not attend a grievance meeting arranged by the respondent for 14 June 2021 because he was unwell.  Communications between the complainant and respondent thereafter concerned the complainant’s ongoing absence from work and the income continuance process.  By email of 30 March 2023, the complainant asked the HR Business Partner, with whom he had been in contact about his absence and income continuance, why there had been no response to his grievances.  By letter to the complainant dated 25 April 2023, the HR Business Partner set out their understanding of events on review of meeting minutes and emails from 2020 to April 2023 and informed the complainant of an investigation meeting arranged for 8 May 2023 to investigate all of the complainant’s grievances.  It further informed the complainant that a written report would issue on conclusion of the investigation and that it would be for a manager to decide next steps on foot of the report. Following investigation by the respondent’s HR Business Partner and Operations Manager, the complainant was provided with draft findings on 27 July 2023.  The complainant was advised on this date that another Operations Manager, external to the depot, would review the draft findings and decide next steps.    On 11 August 2023, the said Operations Manager wrote to the complainant with the final findings and investigation outcome.  The complainant’s grievances were not upheld, and the respondent considered the matter closed.  The complainant did not respond to the communication dated 11 August 2023 and the within complaints were referred to the Commission on 3 January 2024.

CA-00061476-001

There are time limits for referral of claims to the Commission seeking redress under the Acts for discrimination and victimisation.  I am satisfied that section 77(5) of the Acts is applicable on the facts of this case. 

Section 77(5) provides:-

“(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] or Circuit Court, as the case may be, may, for reasonable cause, direct that in relation to the complainant paragraph (a) shall have effect s 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.

(c) This subsection does not apply in relation to a claim not to be receiving remuneration in accordance with an equal remuneration term.”

The complainant relies on the Supreme Court’s decision in County Louth Vocational Educational Committee v Equality Tribunal [2016] IESC 40 in support of his submissions on a continuum of discrimination. 

The complainant submits that an email on 11 August 2023 with the conclusion and final report further to the respondent’s investigation of the complainant’s grievances constitutes discrimination of the complainant on grounds of age and disability, and that the report is an act in a continuum of discrimination of the complainant that was ongoing over the years.  The complainant further submits that the final report is wrong, unjustified, disgraceful and humiliating and did not take account of certain events in 2020, and alleged harassment since July 2020, which the complainant submits is very important to his case.  The complainant stated that he did not bring complaints to the WRC before January 2024 because he was waiting for the respondent to resolve the complaints. 

Section 77(5)(b) of the Act does not arise as the complainant asserted the investigation report was an act of discrimination that occurred within the cognisable period of 4 July 2023 to 3 January 2024 and was the most recent occurrence in a continuum of discrimination dating back to 2020.

The investigation report that issued by email to the complainant on 11 August 2023 was further to an investigation that took place on foot of the complainant’s email to HR of 30 March 2023 inquiring why no one has responded to his grievances.  The investigation report listed six grievances on the part of the complainant and set out findings/conclusions in respect of each grievance.   Each of the grievances relate to events and/or alleged acts or omissions on the part of the respondent in 2020 and 2021, and include the complaint of bullying and harassment by two named managers and a delay by HR in responding to the complainant’s complaint/grievance dated 25 April 2021.  

In accordance with section 85A of the Acts, a complainant must establish facts from which discrimination may be inferred; thereafter the burden of proof passes to the respondent to rebut the presumption of discrimination.  Section 85A states as follows:-

"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."

I am not satisfied of facts of sufficient significance from which to infer prohibited conduct of discrimination, harassment or victimisation within the meaning of section 74(2) of the Acts insofar as the investigation and outcome report, its findings and conclusions, in August 2023 are concerned.  I am also not satisfied on the information before me of sufficient connection between acts or omissions complained to have occurred in 2020 and 2021 and the 2023 investigation and outcome.   The investigation and its outcome were in response to the complainant’s query of 30 March 2023 regarding a lack of response to previous grievances raised.  I have carefully considered the subject matter of the complainant’s grievances, including those that the complainant submits are omitted from the investigation and report and, in this regard, I have carefully considered the complainant’s 5-page response to the draft report in which he details issues not addressed in the investigation. 

The facts establish that the complainant was not satisfied with the scope and findings of the 2023 investigation and report.  In response to my question about what was missing from the report, the complainant stated that it did not address events and incidents that occurred on certain dates in July, August and September 2020. There are assertions of racism, discrimination, bullying and victimisation referable to 2020/2021.  The assertions are not made by reference to protected grounds and notably without reference to the protected grounds of age and disability relied upon in the complaint referral to the WRC.  I am also not satisfied of adverse treatment in connection with the 2023 investigation subject matter by reference to the communications between the HR Business Partner/an investigating officer and the complainant in and around the time of the investigation meeting.

In response to my questions regarding the dates of the specific acts or events detailed in the written submissions as establishing a prima facie case of discrimination, the complainant advised and confirmed dates of alleged occurrence as July 2020, September 2020, November 2020 and up to September 2022 as regards an income protection claim.  Regarding alleged ‘delay in dealing with complainant grievances’, on the complainant’s account, any delay must have been up to April 2023 as the complainant’s evidence was that once the HR Business Partner became involved, work commenced on the complainant’s case, and it progressed.  There is also no information linking any delay with a protected ground.  Any claim under the Acts insofar as it relates to the cessation of sick pay to the complainant is out of time in circumstances where sick pay ceased in 2020. 

Regarding the claim of harassment, I am not satisfied that the complainant has established a prima facie case of harassment in the cognisable period.  The complainant referred to the main offenders as a particular manager and HR officer.   The complainant confirmed that he last saw the previously mentioned manager on 24 March 2021 and that he had not seen him since that date.    There was no direct communication between the complainant and this particular manager after 24 March 2021.  The complainant last saw the HR officer on 3 December 2020.  There were emails between the complainant and the HR officer in April 2021 and June 2021.   It follows that the claims of harassment are out of time.

I find that the complainant fails to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on grounds of age and/or disability in the cognisable period.

I further find that the complainant fails to establish a prima facie case of harassment or victimisation within the meaning of the Acts in the cognisable period.

I therefore find that the claims under the Acts are not well founded.

CA-00061476-005 (Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act 2005)

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 applies to the complaint of penalisation contrary to section 27 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act 2005 (the “2005 Act”).

The information before me does not establish any act or omission by the respondent that affects the complainant to his detriment with respect to any term or condition of his employment within the cognisable period.  The acts of penalisation and intimidation relied upon by the complainant are alleged to have occurred on dates in 2020, 2021 and, in relation to the income continuance, up until September 2022.  The cessation of sick pay occurred in 2020.  Any submission that the respondent’s delay or alleged ignoring of complaints raised by the complainant constituted penalisation of the complainant relates to a period of time prior to April 2023.  I do not consider there to have been penalisation within the meaning of the 2005 Act in relation to the 2023 investigation and outcome having regard to the communications between the complainant and the HR Business Partner/investigating officer at the time regarding the investigation and its subject matter.

Accordingly, I find that the complaint of a contravention of section 27 of the 2005 Act is not well founded.

CA-00061476-001

For the reasons set out above, my decision is that the complainant was not discriminated against, harassed or victimised contrary to the Acts in the cognisable period, and that the claims referred to the Commission are not well-founded.  

CA-00061476-005

For the reasons set out above, my decision is that the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00061476-002, CA-00061476-003, CA-00061476-004 and CA-00061476-006

These complaints were withdrawn by the complainant.

Discrimination – Harassment – Age – Disability – Victimisation – Statutory timeframe for referral of claims – Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act – Penalisation