Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Gaetano  Tufaro

Apple Distribution International Limited

Representatives

  Self-Represented

 J.W. O'Donovan LLP

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00068770-001

22/01/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

CA-00068770-002

22/01/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 18 of the Parental Leave Act 1998

CA-00068770-003

22/01/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by an Adjudication Officer under s27 of the Work life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023

CA-00068770-004

22/01/2025

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

CA-00068770-005

22/01/2025

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

CA-00068770-006

12/06/2025

The Complainant, an Annotation Analyst, appeared in person at the hearing. Riccardo Fordellone, also gave evidence for the Complainant.  It was his case that he was penalised after raising health and safety concerns and after seeking a remote‑working arrangement following a medical event.

An interpreter was presented at the hearing for the benefit of the Complainant. 

Voluminous submissions were received from the Complainant on 22 and 23 January 2025, 6, 10, 17, 18, 20 and 23 June 2025, 15 and 17 July 2025, 5, 11, 25, 27 and 28 August 2025, and 16 and 17 September 2025. The Complainant was repeatedly invited to formally open the documentation in evidence and was advised that, in the absence of doing so, the documentation could not be taken into consideration.

Darragh Whooley, Employee Relations Manager, Aidan Buckley, Employee Relations Partner, Cian Daly, Senior Team Lead, Gareth Fraenkel, Manager all gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent. David Pearson of J.W. O'Donovan LLP represented the Respondent with Ed Hunter, Senior Employment Counsel with the Respondent. Submissions were received from the Respondent on 15 July 2025 and 10 September 2025 and opened at the hearing in evidence.

The Respondent denied all complaints.

All witnesses gave evidence on Affirmation.

The parties availed of the opportunity to cross examine.

The Complainant Form was opened at the outset of the hearing, and time was spent clarifying each of the Complainant’s claims to ensure that all parties were clear regarding the complaints he was proceeding with and those he was withdrawing. The hearing proceeded on that basis.

Where there was the same or similar evidence given under the three penalisation complaints, the evidence has been summaries under one heading.

Complaint under section 86 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00068770-001

The complaint was withdrawn at the hearing by the Complainant.

Complaint under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

CA-00068770-002

The complaint was withdrawn at the hearing by the Complainant.

Complaint under Section 18 of the Parental Leave Act 1998 CA-00068770-003, Complaint under s27 of the Work life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 CA-00068770-004 and Complaint under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005 CA-00068770-005

Complainant’s Evidence

It was the Complainant’s evidence that he was an Annotation Analyst with the Respondent. He commenced employment on 18 February 2019 and with his last day of work being 26 January 2025 when he resigned.

The Complainant stated that he first sought remote‑working in April 2024 due to work‑related stress, a difficult work environment, and the need to support his partner, but this was refused without explanation. After suffering a myocardial infarction in July 2024, he renewed his request on 4 October 2024, supported by medical evidence from his treating doctors and Occupational Health confirming that commuting from Cork posed a serious health risk. This request was again refused on 11 November 2024.

He gave evidence that thereafter his grievances and appeals were met with delays and vague responses, and that he experienced exclusion from projects and a lack of recognition, which he believed were retaliatory. He maintained that the Respondent failed to meaningfully engage with or accommodate his medically‑supported request, that this amounted to penalisation and non‑compliance with the Work Life Balance legislation, and that these failures adversely affected his health and contributed to his resignation in January 2025.

Cross Examination

In cross‑examination, the Complainant confirmed that he was not pursuing a complaint under the Parental Leave Act 1998, despite having selected it on the WRC form.

It was put to him that his remote‑working request was driven by a personal decision to relocate to Dublin rather than by work‑related needs, and he accepted that the Respondent had explained the flexibility already available through its hybrid‑working, flexible start‑time, and temporary remote-working policies.

When asked how he believed he had been penalised, the Complainant stated that his original request was based on both personal and medical concerns and that, following his heart attack, it became a medically‑supported necessity. He asserted that the Respondent failed to meaningfully engage with the medical aspects of his request, relied solely on his Cork contractual location, and did not address his alternatives. He also referred to comparators whom he believed had been accommodated.

The Complainant accepted that his one day a week remote‑working arrangement had not been granted under the Work Life Balance legislation. He accepted that his written contract stated Cork as his place of work and that he applied for remote working on 23 April 2024.

The Respondent put to him that his primary reason for seeking remote working was to support his partner’s relocation to Dublin, as recorded in his meeting with Mr Daly on 9 May 2024. The Complainant accepted this was a reason but disputed that it was the primary one, stating that wellbeing, stress, and personal circumstances also formed part of his request.

The Respondent challenged his evidence regarding the timeline of refusals, putting to him that the first refusal issued on 17 May 2024. The Complainant accepted this date. It was also put to him that he had agreed, through correspondence with Mr Daly and Mr Whooley, to extend the review period to 12 January 2025. The Complainant confirmed this, stating he accepted the extended date because he was told a substantive decision on his medical accommodation request would issue by then and believed the company intended to re-engage with his case.

Mr Fordelloone’s Evidence

It was the witness’s evidence that he worked for the Respondent from November 2020 which included remote working for an additional day a week.

The witness accepted it as a temporary accommodation, reviewed monthly and was not a request under the Work Life Balance legislation.

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

CA-00068770-006

It was the Complainant’s evidence that his resignation on 26 January 2025 was not voluntary. It was his asserted that he had been left with no reasonable alternative but to resign due to the cumulative impact of the events; the Respondent failed to provide reasonable accommodation despite clear medical and Occupational Health recommendations; there were significant and unexplained delays in the handling of his appeal and grievance, the ongoing and unresolved work‑related stress contributed to a serious deterioration in his health; and despite several attempts on his part to engage constructively with management and HR, no meaningful resolution was offered.

It was his evidence that he received a new job offer on 22 December 2024, gave his one month’s notice with his last day of work being 26 January 2025. The Complainant’s account was he kept working int January 2025 to allow the Respondent to his data subject access request and was awaiting the outcome of the grievance report which came in on 28 March 2025.

Cross Examination

The Complainant stated under cross examination that he commenced his new employment on 27 January 2025 with a salary of €72,000 per annum, an increase from his salary of €42,000 with the Respondent.

The Respondent questioned why the Complainant chose to resign on 26 December 2024, before the agreed review period had concluded. The Complainant replied that, despite repeated requests, he had never been provided with a clear or reliable timeline for any decision. He referred to an email chain with Mr Whooley in which he sought confirmation of the investigation outcome but received no substantive response.

He stated that by late December 2024 he had lost confidence that the company would deal fairly with his request, noting that the extension to 12 January 2025 represented an eight‑week delay without explanation, despite his request being supported by medical evidence since 4 October 2024. He explained that when he received a phone call offering him new employment, he decided he could no longer continue waiting for a process he believed would not resolve his concerns.

The Complainant added that when he first submitted his WRC complaint, he did not include a claim for constructive dismissal. He only added this claim later, after reflecting on the sequence of events and noting that he had not received any update on the investigation outcome from Mr Whooley.

Finally, it was put to the Complainant and accepted that he had resigned before the appeal or grievance process had been completed.

Complaint under section 86 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00068770-001

The complaint was withdrawn at the hearing.

Complaint under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

CA-00068770-002

The complaint was withdrawn at the hearing.

Complaint under Section 18 of the Parental Leave Act 1998 CA-00068770-003, Complaint under s27 of the Work life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 CA-00068770-004, Complaint under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005 CA-00068770-005

Mr Daly’s Evidence

Mr Cian Daly, a Senior Team Lead within Apple’s AIML division, stated that he oversees approximately six team leads and a total group of around 180 employees. He confirmed his familiarity with remote working applications under the Work Life Balance legislation, explaining that such applications typically involve a face to face meeting with the applicant, followed by review with Employee Relations.

He confirmed that he met the Complainant on 9 May 2024 regarding his April 2024 remote working request and that nothing unusual arose in the application. The witness recalled that the Complainant’s stated reason for seeking remote working was his partner’s new job in Dublin and his wish to relocate there. Following the meeting, Mr Daly consulted ER and issued an outcome on 17 May 2024, refusing the request.

He summarised the decision was based on existing Apple policies, specifically the remote working policy, four week remote working policy, and flexible start‑time provisions which he stated already provided significant flexibility. He further explained that the request was refused because the Complainant’s role required in person collaboration in Cork and that, in the Respondent’s view, current arrangements were sufficient.

Cross Examination of Mr Daly

During cross examination, the Complainant put it to the witness that he had raised wellbeing and mental health concerns in both his written request and during their meeting. Mr Daly accepted that the Complainant had referred to wellbeing and personal circumstances but stated he was not aware of any medical concerns being raised at the meeting.

The Complainant highlighted that he had been open to alternatives, including temporary or partial remote working arrangements, and asked the witness to confirm that this had been discussed; Mr Daly agreed that the Complainant had indicated flexibility. The Complainant then put it to the witness that the refusal letter addressed only a permanent remote working request and did not reference any alternatives. Mr Daly accepted that the outcome letter did not mention temporary options or alternative arrangements.

Mr Fraenkel’s Evidence

Mr Gareth Fraenkel, Senior Team Lead, dealt with the application for a temporary remote working on 17 November 2024 under the Work Life Balance legislation. It was his evidence that he was aware that there was separate process initiated by the Complainant, the October request, and it was decided that the two processes should be kept separate.  

Mr Freankel’s decision issued on 10 January 2025 which rejected the application where it was the Complainant’s personal decision to relocate to Dublin and due to the in-person collaboration associated with his role, there was a business need to attend the office. It was also noted that the Complainant had resigned and had been permitted to work remotely for the remainder of his employment with the Respondent.

Cross Examination

It was put to the witness that the Complainant replied to his invite to attend an in person meeting, which was accepted. It was accepted that he replied in writing explaining that his reasons for not attending was due to the open grievance.

Mr Whooley’s Evidence

Mr Darragh Whooley, Employee Relations Manager, stated that he became involved in the Complainant’s case in early December 2024 and understood that he was to address two matters: the remote working/medical accommodation request and a separate, wide-ranging grievance. He confirmed issuing an email on 5 December 2024 advising that he would review both issues and that no temporary interim accommodation could be offered pending the outcome.

He stated he was not aware of earlier emails in which the Complainant sought clear timelines or asked that the grievance and appeal be handled separately. He confirmed the grievance investigation was never completed but acknowledged that, after the Complainant resigned, he replied to an email indicating Respondent would still bring the grievance process to conclusion.

Regarding the appeal of the remote working refusal, the witness explained that he investigated the appeal in January and February 2025 and completed an internal report in March 2025. He confirmed that he did not uphold the appeal, stating that the key factor in the refusal was that the request stemmed from the Complainant’s personal decision to relocate to Dublin, rather than from medical need.

Cross Examination

During cross examination, Mr Whooley stated that he became involved in the Complainant’s casein early December 2023 and understood that two matters were referred to him: a request for medical accommodation in the form of remote working and a broader grievance raising general workplace concerns.

He confirmed that on 5 December 2023 he informed the Complainant that no temporary work from home arrangement would be granted pending completion of the process and that he would review both the medical accommodation request and the grievance submission. Mr Whooley accepted that the Complainant sought clear timelines and separation of the appeal and grievance processes, but stated that no specific procedural timeframe was provided, noting that such investigations generally took as long as necessary. He further confirmed that the broader grievance investigation was not concluded during the Complainant’s employment, although he indicated that the Company would bring it to a conclusion after the Complainant resigned.

In respect of the appeal of the refusal of medical accommodation dated 11 November 2023, Mr Whooley stated that he investigated and prioritised the appeal during January and February 2024 and completed an internal appeal outcome in March 2024. He confirmed that the appeal was not upheld, maintaining the Company’s original decision. The principal reason given was that the request for remote working arose from the Complainant’s personal decision to relocate, resulting in a commuting issue rather than a medical necessity, which Mr Whooley stated was consistent with the Respondent’s practice.

He confirmed that medical documentation had been considered but that the Complainant’s employment had ended prior to completion of the appeal and, as a result, the outcome and comparator information were not communicated to him.

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

CA-00068770-006

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant’s case did not meet the legal standard for constructive dismissal, as there was no fundamental breach of contract and no unreasonable behaviour that forced his resignation.

It emphasised that the Complainant resigned before internal procedures were completed despite agreeing to wait until 12 January 2025 and had already accepted a higher‑paid role elsewhere, resulting in no financial loss.

Berber v Dunnes Stores [2009] IESC, Murray v. Rockabill Shellfish Ltd UD1832/2010, Conway v Ulster Bank Ltd. (UD 474/1981)

Closing Submission

The Respondent submitted that only the Work life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 complaint remained valid, as the Complainant was not pursuing the Terms of Employment or Parental Leave Act claims, and there was no jurisdiction to re‑label complaints. The Respondent maintained that all obligations under the Work life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 and the Code of Practice had been met, and that dissatisfaction with timelines or decisions did not amount to penalisation.

It was further submitted that the Complainant failed to establish discrimination, lacked a valid comparator, and that his request concerned personal relocation rather than workplace accommodation, which employers are not required to facilitate.

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

CA-00068770-001

The complaint was withdrawn at the hearing.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

CA-00068770-002

The complaint was withdrawn at the hearing.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 18 of the Parental Leave Act 1998

CA-00068770-003

The Complainant accepted that he was not pursuing a complaint under Section 18 of the Parental Leave Act 1998 in cross examination.

Consequently, I find the Complainant was not penalised for proposing or exercising his entitlement to parental, force majeure, medical care purposes, domestic violence leave, request a flexible working arrangement, or changes when returning from parental leave.

The complaint is not well founded.  

Complaint seeking adjudication by an Adjudication Officer under s27 of the Work life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 - CA-00068770-004

Section 20 of the Work life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 sets out the right to request a remote working arrangement

“20. (1) An employee may, in accordance with this Part, request approval from his or her employer for a remote working arrangement.

(2) An employee’s approved remote working arrangement shall not commence before a time when the employee concerned has completed 6 months continuous employment with the employer concerned.

(3) A request for a remote working arrangement referred to in subsection (1) shall—

(a) be in writing and signed by the employee,

(b) specify the details of the remote working arrangement requested and the proposed date of commencement and, where applicable, expiration of the remote working arrangement,

(c) specify, having regard to the code of practice—

(i) the reasons why he or she is requesting approval of the remote working arrangement (in this Part referred to as “the employee’s needs”),

(ii) details of the proposed remote working location, and

(iii) information as may be specified in the code of practice on the suitability of the proposed remote working location,

and

(d) be submitted to his or her employer as soon as reasonably practicable but not later than 8 weeks before the proposed commencement of the remote working arrangement.”

The Complainant alleged that the Respondent failed to comply with its obligations under the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 and that he was penalised in connection with his request for remote working.

Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the Respondent engaged with the Complainant’s request in accordance with its procedures and the Code of Code of Practice for Employers and Employees Right to Request Flexible Working and Right to Request Remote Working, considered the application, and issued reasoned decisions. The evidence supports the Respondent’s position that the request was refused on operational grounds and on the basis that it arose primarily from personal relocation rather than qualifying grounds under the Act.

I find no evidence of penalisation within the meaning of section 27 of the Work life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023.

Accordingly, this complaint is not well founded.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005 - CA-00068770-005

Section 27 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 (“2005 Act”) provides:

27.—(1) In this section “penalisation” includes any act or omission by an employer or a person acting on behalf of an employer that affects, to his or her detriment, an employee with respect to any term or condition of his or her employment.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), penalisation includes—

(a) suspension, lay-off or dismissal (including a dismissal within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2001), or the threat of suspension, lay-off or dismissal,

(b) demotion or loss of opportunity for promotion,

(c) transfer of duties, change of location of place of work, reduction in wages or change in working hours,

(d) imposition of any discipline, reprimand or other penalty (including a financial penalty), and

(e) coercion or intimidation.

(3) An employer shall not penalise or threaten penalisation against an employee for—

(a) acting in compliance with the relevant statutory provisions,

(b) performing any duty or exercising any right under the relevant statutory provisions,

(c) making a complaint or representation to his or her safety representative or employer or the Authority, as regards any matter relating to safety, health or welfare at work,

(d) giving evidence in proceedings in respect of the enforcement of the relevant statutory provisions,

(e) being a safety representative or an employee designated under section 11 or appointed under section 18 to perform functions under this Act, or

(f) subject to subsection (6), in circumstances of danger which the employee reasonably believed to be serious and imminent and which he or she could not reasonably have been expected to avert, leaving (or proposing to leave) or, while the danger persisted, refusing to return to his or her place of work or any dangerous part of his or her place of work, or taking (or proposing to take) appropriate steps to protect himself or herself or other persons from the danger.

(4) The dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2001, to be an unfair dismissal if it results wholly or mainly from penalisation as referred to in subsection (2)(a).

(5) If penalisation of an employee, in contravention of subsection (3), constitutes a dismissal of the employee within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2001, relief may not be granted to the employee in respect of that penalisation both under this Part and under those Acts.

(6) For the purposes of subsection (3)(f), in determining whether the steps which an employee took (or proposed to take) were appropriate, account shall be taken of all the circumstances and the means and advice available to him or her at the relevant time.”

The Complainant contended that he was penalised for raising health and safety concerns, including concerns relating to work‑related stress and his medical condition.

While it is accepted that the Complainant experienced genuine health difficulties and raised concerns with the Respondent, the evidence does not establish he suffered a detriment with no causal connection between the exercise of rights under the Act and any penalisation by the Respondent.

I am satisfied that the Respondent engaged with the Complainant’s concerns through its internal processes and that the actions complained of did not amount to penalisation within the meaning of Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005.

For these reasons, I find the complaint not well founded.

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

CA-00068770-006

Section 1(b) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 defines constructive dismissal as “the termination by the employee of his/her contract of employment with his/her employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employer, in circumstances in which because of the conduct of the employer, the employee was or would  have been entitled, or it was or would have been reasonable for the employee, to terminate the contract of employment without giving prior notice of the termination to the employer”.

The Supreme Court inBerber v Dunnes Stores [2009] IESC 10 held: 

“The conduct of the employer complained of must be unreasonable and without proper cause and its effect on the employee must be judged objectively, reasonably and sensibly in order to determine if it is such that an employee can put up with it.”

In Conway v Ulster Bank Ltd. (UD 474/1981)where the Employment Appeals Tribunal stated that:

“the appellant did not act reasonably in resigning without first having substantially utilised the grievance procedure to attempt to remedy her complaints.”

The Complainant claimed that he was constructively dismissed on the basis that the Respondent’s handling of his remote‑working request, grievance, and appeal left him with no reasonable alternative but to resign.

I find that the Complainant resigned before the completion of internal procedures, having agreed to an extended review period, and had secured alternative employment prior to his resignation. While the Complainant was dissatisfied with the pace and outcome of the processes, the evidence does not establish a fundamental breach of contract or unreasonable conduct by the Respondent such as would justify resignation.

Accordingly, I find that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed.

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

CA-00068770-001

The complaint was withdrawn.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

CA-00068770-002

The complaint was withdrawn.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 18 of the Parental Leave Act 1998

CA-00068770-003

The complaint is not well founded

Complaint seeking adjudication by an Adjudication Officer under s27 of the Work life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023

CA-00068770-004

The complaint is not well founded

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

CA-00068770-005

The complaint is not well founded

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

CA-00068770-006

I find the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed.