Anonymised Parties

An Employee

A Company

Representatives

Self-represented

HR Consultant

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-00074689-001

21/08/2025

The complainant submitted a complaint that she was discriminated against on race grounds. She also claims that a collective agreement contains discriminatory provisions.

The respondent denies the complaint.

Summary of Complainant’s Evidence

The complainant gave testimony that she commenced employment as New Arrivals Support Worker in September 2024. She said she received hostile treatment from a colleague of the same grade who worked from the same budget and had similar clients. At the commencement of her employment, she asked her colleague if they could look at budgets together. These meetings were cancelled as her colleague refused to meet. She made a spread sheet of her spending and shared it with her, so she had a full view of her spending. She said that it soon emerged that her colleague had an insufficient budget to fund all her planned activities. Her colleague informed her that it was not a competition with the budget and that she was not considerate enough of her. She informed her colleague that she had sent on the spread sheet and proceeded, and she had earlier refused to meet to discuss.

In October 2024 she received a list of programme participants, and her colleague asked her to assist with the registrations. She could not do this as she had her own work and said she would attend when she had finished. She said that her colleague then left the office and slammed the door. Her line manager then asked her to assist her colleague and she did this. She said her colleague’s behaviour was starting to affect her.

Also in October 2024, an issue arose with the catering requirements of a class. This escalated into an argument in the corridor. She said her colleague told her that she should treat her like a mother and show more respect. She replied that she expected equal treatment and respect. A manager heard this exchange and stepped in advising them to go home as it was finishing time. The next day or day after, she was called into the CEO Office with her line manager to discuss the issues that had arisen. The CEO met with her colleague separately. The CEO then brought herself and her colleague together and warned them to be respectful in the workplace. They were asked to address each other, and she offered an apology to her colleague. She knew they had started on the wrong footing and needed to improve communications. She said her colleague did not say anything other than that her mental wellbeing was affected.  

A meeting was arranged with the Finance Officer to discuss budgets. The line manager also attended this meeting, and she was asked to examine the budget and report back. As she needed information from her colleague, she asked the Finance Officer to get this directly from her. At this stage, she was concerned about staying and thought that she may have to find another job.

In February 2025, she went for a coffee with her colleague to try and build a better relationship. She said her line manager was aware that they were meeting for coffee.

In May 2025, her line manager informed her that the budgets would be split. She then worked on her own clients and programmes independently. She said a support group reached out to her on a celebration day of culture. As this related to her colleague’s programme, she informed the group to contact her. She also informed her colleague that she had referred them to her and that she could support through her own budget, if needed. She said her colleague did not reply to the group. When she raised this with her colleague, she responded the group just wanted money. She replied to her that funding is what most groups want. She said her colleague planned an intercultural day on the same date as the culture day. She asked her colleague why the same day and the response was that they could run two separate events. She then asked her colleague to change the date and reported the clash of dates to her line manager.

In June 2025, she booked a venue for a course to commence at 10am. When she got to the venue, the facilitator and participants were outside, as the venue was in use. She said the booking manager informed her that her colleague had said she would be commencing at 10.30. She said her course commenced then at 10.45am for the next three weeks. She flagged the double booking to her line manager. She said her line manager did not follow up on this, at that time. 

In June 2025, she said an issue arose which broke the camel’s back. She said herself and her colleague were working on a joint event and had split the responsibilities. She had informed her colleague that she was on leave on the day of the event. When she got back to the office to update her on what was arranged, her colleague told her that her voice was irritating and was giving her a headache. She replied that she was not being fair, as she could not change her voice. Her colleague then told her that she wanted to take leave herself on the day of the event. After this incident, she sent an email to her line manager to make a formal complaint. She was then asked to review the handbook. She submitted a formal complaint on 25th June 2025.

She then documented issues in more detail and sent to management in early July 2025. She attended a meeting and agreed to meet an external mediator. She decided not to proceed with mediation. The next meeting took place on 18th August 2025, and it was decided not to go ahead with a formal investigation on her bullying complaints. She said the meeting lasted 10 minutes. Her expectation was that some formal investigation and witnesses interviewed. She then made a complaint to the WRC on 21st August 2025.

Closing Submission

The complainant submitted that repeated workplace behaviour occurred and management refused to investigate. She said management accepted there were multiple incidents which she had outlined in evidence. She said the relationship with her colleague was described by management as dysfunctional. As there was repeated inappropriate behaviour, it met the definition of bullying. She said the respondents’ reference to the Supreme Court decision is not the test. The company policy states repeated inappropriate behaviour, and this was substituted to “interpersonal conflict”. There was no formal investigation or due process with witnesses and she did everything required of her. She said the respondent closed off the process and forced her to the WRC. Although ‘race’ was not specifically mentioned in the formal complaints, it can arise from context and equality analysis. She concluded that there was an obligation on her employer to investigate the complaints and this was not done.

Summary of HR Consultant’s Evidence

The witness said as HR Consultant she advised the company on workplace policies and procedures. She was notified in June 2025 that formal complaints were raised by the complainant. She advised the respondent to meet the parties and identify the core issues and use the company policies. She said there was a more detailed formal complaint submitted in July 2025. Consistent with the Code of Practice, she said the complaint needs to meet a threshold. She said the complaint did not meet this. There was an initial focus on mediation, followed by an alternative dispute resolution process of a code of conduct for the parties. This ensured a clear message that inappropriate behaviour could lead to possible disciplinary sanctions. She said the rights of all parties needed to be considered and she referred to the Supreme Court decision of Ruffley v. The Board of Management of St Anne’s School of 2017.

She submitted that a claim of racial discrimination cannot be substantiated.

Summary of Chief Executive Officer’s Evidence

The witness confirmed her role as CEO. The complainant commenced employment on 2nd September 2024. She said her colleague had commenced back in May 2022. She said there were always two staff in these roles with a joint budget. As CEO, once aware of a heated argument in the corridor, she met the parties separately and then together. There was an opportunity for them to address each other with no forced apology. She said that September to December 2025 was an important period to ensure the budget was on target. The purpose of her intervention was to clear the air and assist both to move on and focus on their work. She disagreed that she was fully up to speed with the conflict between the parties prior to this intervention. She was aware of meetings with the Finance Officer and the line manager on the budget.

In 2025, it was decided that the parties should have separate budgets. She said she was aware in late June 2025 of the complaint followed by a more detailed document in early July 2025. She met the complainant on 25th June 2025 and clarified with her that the earlier meeting was not a disciplinary meeting, and the purpose was to clear the air. She asked the complainant to review the company policies and advised her of the Employee Assistance Programme (EAP).

After receiving the detailed submission on 7th July 2025, there was a meeting arranged with an independent mediator. The complainant refused to enter that process. The next step was to look at the formal complaint. At the meeting on 18th August 2025, it was decided the complaint did not meet the criteria. This was a brief meeting although the reasoning was outlined later in writing. It was outlined to the complainant the next steps of a five-step code of conduct. The complainant then referred a complaint to the WRC and informed her that the issues were impacting on her health. She was offered counselling with six paid sessions, as per the policy.  She continued to implement the five-step process. The complainant’s colleague moved office in September 2025.

Under cross-examination, she confirmed the company policies included fixed term staff. She followed the policy and linked in with the HR Consultant. As CEO, she decided on the approach and informed her colleague of the complaint. She said she made the decision not to investigate after assessing the threshold. She was asked about the definition of “interpersonal conflict” and where it appeared in the policy. She replied that the policy refers to interpersonal issues, poor communication, teamwork and that colleagues are expected to assist each other.

She was asked when it was decided the issues were not behavioural concerns. She replied that the issues were operational and were not bullying or related to race. She was asked about the Supreme Court case in the WRC submission. She replied that inappropriate conduct does not always equal bullying.  She was asked if an equality assessment or equality advice was obtained prior to the decision not to investigate. She replied that no advice was obtained.

She was asked if her colleague’s comments on ‘groups just seeking money’ raised concerns for her. She replied it did not. She was asked whether the multiple issues of her being undermined as a staff member caused concerns and whether pro-active steps were taken. She replied that the issues were followed up and staff always checked in with her, along with the EAP counselling support provided.

She was asked why hindering future dynamic and possible dysfunction in the organisation was a factor in not investigating matters. She replied that the organisation response was in line with the policy and there was a five-step process that could lead to disciplinary sanctions.

Closing Submission

The HR Consultant referred to the detailed submission made. She said there were no examples or evidence that the complainant was treated differently to others on race grounds. There was a proactive approach taken by the employer. A focussed action plan was in place to resolve issues. She concluded that a prima facie case of discrimination has not been made out.

The Law

The Employment Equality Act promotes equality in the workplace and provides protection against discrimination. The Act prohibits discrimination on nine grounds, which includes race. Discrimination occurs when one person is treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated. The employee must demonstrate that they have been treated less favourably than a comparator.

Section 85A(1) of the Act provides:

“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.”

The Complainant is required to establish facts from which discrimination can be inferred. It is only when this burden is discharged that the burden shifts to the respondent to show that no unlawful discrimination took place. The Labour Court in Southern Health Board v Mitchell [2001] ELR 201 considered the extent of this evidential burden and held:

“The first requirement is that the claimant must establish facts from which it may be presumed that the principle of equal treatment has not been applied to them. This indicates that a claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, the primary facts on which they rely in seeking to raise a presumption of unlawful discrimination. It is only if these primary facts are established to the satisfaction of the Court, and they are regarded by the Court as being of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of discrimination, that the onus shifts to the respondent to prove that there is no infringement of the principle of equal treatment.”

Applying the Law to the Facts

Complainant Evidence

The complainant contends that she has been discriminated against on race grounds whilst making complaints of bullying in the workplace. Ultimately, it was decided by the respondent not to investigate her complaints. The testimony of the complainant did not provide facts from which it could be presumed that she was discriminated on race grounds. There was no documentary evidence of adverse treatment due to race. Although the complainant was dissatisfied that no investigation ensued, there was insufficient evidence of primary facts which related this treatment to race. In essence, a comparable member of staff not of the same race in the same situation could also have been refused an investigation under the company policies. There was no evidence of similar complaints that were investigated or would have been investigated given the same circumstances. 

Respondent Evidence

The respondent witnesses gave testimony that the complaints made were not investigated due to the Company Policy, Code of Practice and Ruffley judgment. The testimony given was that the complaint did not reach the definition or threshold of bullying to warrant an investigation. As primary facts of possible racial treatment were not established, the respondent witnesses did not have a prima facie case to rebut.

Findings

Having considered the witness testimony, I find that the respondent has not discriminated against the complainant on race grounds. I am satisfied that there was no discriminatory treatment on race grounds due to insufficient evidence. I decide the complaint is not well founded.

On the complaint of a collective agreement containing discriminatory provisions, as there was no evidence given on this complaint, I decide the complaint is not well founded.

Discrimination on Race Grounds

I decide this complaint is not well founded.

Collective Agreement Contains Discriminatory Provisions

I decide this complaint is not well founded.

Discrimination on Race Ground