Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Michal  Badowicz

Bus Eireann

Representatives

Self Represented

Lauren Tennyson B.L. Instructed by High Hannon Solicitor

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00070079-001

19/03/2025

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

CA-00070079-002

19/03/2025

The Complainant is employed by the Respondent as a Driver and Acting Supervisor.

The Complaint alleged discrimination on grounds of nationality pursuant to the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2021 (“the Acts”).

The Complainant’s initiating Complaint Form dated the 19th of March 2025 made the following submission

“I am submitting a formal complaint regarding ongoing discrimination and retaliation that I have experienced at my workplace, Bus Éireann. The discriminatory treatment I have faced is based on my nationality and role within the company, and this has been ongoing since I raised my initial grievance. I was subjected to both direct and indirect discrimination, unfair treatment, and retaliation, all of which have significantly impacted my professional growth and well-being.

1. Discrimination Based on Nationality

I have been treated unfairly compared to my colleagues, specifically in terms of shift allocation and job opportunities. Despite being the most qualified for the acting supervisor position, I was passed over in favour of someone who lacked the required qualifications. I was regularly assigned the most demanding shifts, while other Acting Supervisors, with fewer qualifications, were not. This led to a feeling of exclusion and biased treatment, particularly since my role involved constant changes to my shifts and duties that were not applied to others.

2. Failure to Provide Equal Opportunity

The acting supervisor role, despite being open, was not offered to me on a fair basis. I was told that I was not eligible for specific secondments despite having the relevant experience and qualifications. I had no clear explanation for why I was excluded, and this exclusion seemed to coincide with my formal grievance against unfair treatment.

3. Retaliation and Impact on Job Opportunities

After submitting my grievance, a clear pattern of retaliation became evident. During the Galway Race Week, I was the only Acting Inspector who was assigned to driving duties, while all other Acting Inspectors—including a former panel member no longer officially on the panel—were given supervisory roles at the event. I was sent by bus to both the Service Manager and the Regional Manager, who saw firsthand that I was still performing driver duties while the others were acting in their inspector capacities. Despite their awareness of this, no action was taken, leading me to believe this was a deliberate decision to exclude me from key responsibilities. In addition, I was denied two job opportunities in Athlone under questionable circumstances. In the School Inspector interview, I was given vague feedback stating that I "did not answer in STAR format," which appeared to be a generic dismissal rather than a genuine assessment of my qualifications. For the Athlone Depot Inspector role, my follow-up email seeking feedback was completely ignored. Instead, the position was given to a parttime driver who did not meet the stated qualifications. There is reason to believe that personal connections played a role in this decision, as the successful candidate is related to an inspector in another town. This raises concerns about whether fair hiring practices were followed. Taken together, these actions strongly indicate that I was subjected to unfair treatment, retaliation for my previous complaints, and potential discrimination. Furthermore, it is important to note that the same HR personnel and manager who were directly involved in the subject of my previous grievance were also responsible for conducting my job interviews and deciding the outcome of the recruitment processes. This represents a clear conflict of interest and undermines the integrity and fairness of the selection process. Their continued involvement, despite my prior formal complaint against them, raises serious concerns about bias and the legitimacy of the recruitment outcomes. This lack of engagement by HR appears to fall short of the employer’s obligation to provide equal and non-discriminatory working conditions under the Employment Equality Acts.

4. Inadequate Response from HR

Despite my clear communications and efforts to engage HR, the responses I received were inadequate, dismissive, and often delayed. I received no direct feedback regarding my grievance about the discrimination and retaliation I was experiencing. Furthermore, I was never provided with a written agreement regarding my terms as an Acting Supervisor, despite repeated requests. This lack of acknowledgement and response from HR exacerbated the situation, leaving me feeling unsupported and sidelined.

These events followed the submission of my earlier case to the Workplace Relations Commission under reference ADJ-00054048, which partly addressed employment issues but did not resolve or consider the ongoing retaliation, discriminatory practices, and unequal treatment I continue to experience. This Equal Status complaint seeks to address those outstanding concerns.

5. Ongoing Unfair Allocation of Shifts – Discriminatory Pattern and Lack of Transparency

The issue of unfair and unequal shift allocation remains unresolved, despite previous complaints and a broader collective grievance raised within the depot. I continue to be regularly assigned the most demanding, late-night, and less desirable shifts, while others in similar or even less senior roles are consistently given more favourable schedules. This ongoing pattern persists despite management being fully aware, yet no steps have been taken to investigate or resolve the issue fairly.

One of the core problems is the continued ability of Inspectors to pick and choose their preferred shifts or change them freely. As a result, acting inspectors—like myself, who are not on secondment—are left with the most difficult and undesirable shifts. In contrast, acting supervisors on secondment have access to more favourable rosters through a separate picking process, leaving the remaining shifts, often the hardest ones, to be filled by a small group of acting inspectors. This results in an uneven and unsustainable workload, particularly when the most demanding duties—such as those involving high traffic pressure and constant driver management—are disproportionately assigned to me. This unfair distribution of responsibilities negatively affects my work-life balance and contributes to stress and fatigue, while reinforcing a sense of exclusion and unequal treatment. Recently, I even had to decline several demanding shifts, as continuing in my driver role would have allowed me some much-needed time with my family. However, the early shifts had already been taken by acting supervisors on secondment, and the difficult shifts they opted out of were reassigned to me.

This pattern has continued for months and clearly highlights a lack of fairness, transparency, and consideration in how shifts are allocated. It also raises concerns about discriminatory or retaliatory practices, particularly when less experienced or better-positioned staff are consistently given easier rosters. I respectfully ask that this matter be properly addressed and reviewed through a fair and transparent process that upholds equal treatment and dignity at work”

The Complainant initially made his claim pursuant to the Equal Status Act 2000. However, at the initial hearing the Complainant contended that he had always intended to invoke the Employment Equality Acts as the basis of his claim for discrimination on grounds of nationality. The Complainant delivered further written and oral submissions and gave evidence at the hearing as discussed below. The Claim Pursuant to the Equal Status was withdrawn.

At the initial hearing the Respondent in written submissions pointed out (amongst other issues) that the Claim made pursuant to the Equal Status Act 2000 was misconceived. However, following an explanation from the Complainant that he had always intended to invoke the Employment Equality Acts the Respondent, very fairly, agreed that it would meet the claim made as if it had been initiated under the Employment Equality Acts and further submissions from the Complainant were directed to which the Respondent replied. The principal points made by the Respondent in those replying submissions were as follows:

The Respondent identified that the cognisable period in respect of the Complainant’s claims was the six-month period immediately preceding the delivery of the Complaint form, i.e. from the 20th of September 2024 to the 19th of March 2025 and it was contended that any issues raised by the Complainant which occurred outside of this period were out of time.

The Respondent denied that it discriminated against the Complainant whether in relation to his terms of employment or in relation to the conduct of his internal grievance as alleged. The Respondent further denied that the Complainant was subjected to the alleged or any retaliation. 

Relevant facts and Evidence

The following evidence was matters were agreed save where otherwise appears and where so appearing the evidence of the parties is referenced. The Complainant gave evidence on his own behalf and represented himself. Two witnesses gave evidence for the Respondent, Mr Peter Melia, Service Delivery Manager and Ms. Nicola Mulhern, Regional HR Delivery Manager – West. All witnesses gave evidence on affirmation.

The Respondent referred to a document containing the identity of the relevant members of the Acting Supervisor Panel. All of these workers are drivers who also take on Acting Supervisor Duties. This list includes three individuals (whose identities was known to all parties) who, in addition to being Acting Supervisors, are also on the Secondment Panel. These three individuals will be referred to as ‘the Secondment Panel Members’. The remaining four individuals (all of whose identities were also known to the parties) including the Complainant, will be referred to as ‘the Other Panel Members’.

The Complainant sought to identify the Secondment Panel Members as his comparator group and in one respect a particular named member of that group.

In unchallenged evidence Mr. Melia stated that in January of 2023, the introduction of electric vehicles required additional monitoring which necessitated additional resources which were secured on an interim basis from the National Transport Authority. With this funding three positions were created whereby Acting Supervisors would join a Secondment Panel. All staff members who were Acting Supervisors at that time received an email notification inviting them to apply for inclusion on this Secondment Panel. The three named individuals identified above as the Secondment Panel Members applied and were appointed. They were appointed because at that time they were already Acting Supervisors and all eligible workers who were Acting Supervisors at that time were invited to apply.

In April 2023 the Other Panel Members (including the Complainant) were appointed as Acting Supervisors. They were not appointed to the Secondment Panel as that panel had already been filled in January 2023 at which time the Other Panel Members were not carrying out the duties of Acting Supervisor and were therefore not eligible. However, in October 2023 the Complainant emailed the Respondent asking why he was not included on the Secondment Panel. The Complainant alleged that he was simply told that he could not be included. However, Mr. Melia explained in his evidence that a written response was sent to the Complainant by the A.V.L. Manager and in addition, that manager and Mr. Melia had a meeting with the Complainant on the 22nd of April 2024 and the above circumstances were fully explained to him. In addition to the Complainant, each of the other individuals in the Other Panel Members group also raised similar queries and received similar responses. The email to the Complainant was sent on the 3rd of May 2024. Having heard Mr. Melia’s evidence on this issue the Complainant did not challenge that evidence. However, he did contend that the system was a bar to his career progression. He said that he raised this issue and his concerns in relation to discrimination on the ground of his nationality in an internal grievance which he instituted in May 2024, and he alleged that the outcome to that grievance did not deal with the discrimination issue which he raised. This issue was dealt with in Ms. Mulhern’s evidence discussed below. 

As regards whether the Comparators identified by the Complainant enjoy more favourable treatment, the Complainant argued that the system operates in such a way that the best shifts are taken by the members of the Secondment Panel leaving him only with the unattractive shifts, which in his case are the late shifts. Mr. Melia explained that the system of temporary Supervisor cover arises where a Permanent Supervisor is unable to fill a shift for any reason. When this occurs the first step is to offer the cover to existing Permanent Supervisors and only where there is no uptake from this group does the shift get offered to others. Those others comprise the entire group of Acting Supervisors which comprises all 7 individuals named and identified by the Respondent, the Secondment Panel Members and the Other Panel Members including the Complainant. Mr. Melia said that the shifts are offered on a rota basis to whichever Acting Supervisor whose turn is next up. It is open to any member of the Acting Supervisor Panel to swap a shift with anyone else on the panel and all members of the panel including the Complainant can do this. In addition, no panel member is obliged to take a shift, and each individual has the right to decline the shift. In response to this evidence the Complainant contended that a discretion is exercised such that the best shifts go to Secondment Panel Members and he only ends up being offered the late shifts.

The Complainant argued that in his grievance he identified a particular pattern in April and May of 2024 when a Secondment Panel Member got fewer late shifts than he. Mr. Meila said that this was possible but neither he nor the Complainant in his evidence could be sure that this was the case.  

Ms. Mulheren gave evidence in relation to the Complainant’s internal grievance. She was appointed to investigate the issues raised. She received the complainant’s email of the 29th of May 2024 and requested supporting documentation which was received and a formal meeting was set up with the Complainant and his trade union representative on the 3rd of October 2024. At that meeting the items raised in the Complainant’s grievance documentation were considered and discussed in detail. Mr. Mulhern said that the issue of alleged discrimination had been mentioned in the written submissions, but it was not raised in the formal meeting. Following the meeting in a letter to the Complainant dated the 18th of October 2024 Ms Mulher issued an outcome to two of the three grievances raised. The third issue raised, which concerned the allocation of duties, required more time and an outcome to this grievance was issued on the 23rd of December 2024. The outcome of the third ground was that the review of shift allocations contained in the letter was as Ms. Mulhern put it “based on the information available to me, information regarding an individual’s availability to undertake the required duty and if they were the first preference in covering the duty was not available”.  The Complainant replied to this email on the 25th of December 2024 (“the Christmas Day Email”). Stating as follows:

“Thank you for your response to my grievance. After carefully reviewing your findings, I believe several key concerns remain unresolved, particularly regarding duty allocation, transparency and fairness.

I have outlined these issues in detail in the attached document and kindly request a comprehensive review and response to the points raised”

There were several documents attached to the Christmas Day Email, including a lengthy submission document, at the end of which the Complainant stated:

“My grievance also raised concerns about potential retaliation and discriminatory practices, including being the only foreign national Acting Supervisor at the Galway Depot. These concerns were not addressed in your response.

I request clarification on whether these concerns were reviewed and what conclusions, if any, were reached”

Ms. Mulhern considered the Christmas Day email and its attachments on her return to work after Christmas, in January 2025. However, she took the view that when she issued her final outcome letter regarding the grievance on the 23rd of December 2024, her involvement was at an end and the process was complete. She explained that the grievance process which she conducted was at Stage C of the Respondent’s grievance policy and the next step from that stage, Stage D involved the referral of the issue to a third party such as the WRC. When she looked at the Christmas Day Email, she noted that the subject heading contained the reference CA00066039 which, she was aware, related to Claims to the WRC which the Complainant had previously initiated (“the Previous Claims”). It was explained that this claim was one of two matters which were referred, one of which (allocated File Reference ADJ-00054048) was a Terms of Employment Information Act claim. The other was a referral under the Industrial Relations Acts. She was not sure whether the Christmas Day Email related to the existing WRC claims or whether it was a response to the outcome of the grievance procedure which she had issued. If it related to the former, then she did not wish to reply as she was aware that those claims were listed for hearing at the WRC on the 28th of January 2025. If the Christmas Email related to the grievance, then she did not think it appropriate to reply since her involvement was, as she perceived the situation, at an end once the final outcome was issued and the Complainant would then have to invoke the third-party referral at stage D.

As it happened, when the hearing of the Previous Claims took place, the Complainant produced the Christmas Email and its attachments and the Claimant confirmed that the Adjudication Officer advised the parties that the email and its attachments were outside his terms of reference and would not be considered in the context of the cases then before him. Counsel for the Respondent then directed me to the Determination and Recommendations issued in the Previous Claims on the 18th of March 2025. Counsel directed me to the recommendation in relation to the Complaint made by the Complainant that his treatment was personal and that he might be subject to recriminations for raising the dispute. The Adjudication Officer found no concrete evidence that either had taken place and further that if the Complainant was still unhappy with his treatment, then he had the option of raising a fresh grievance with the employer (my emphasis). However instead of pursing any such fresh grievance with the employer the Complainant initiated the present claim on the 19th of March 2025 on the day following the issuance of the WRC decision and recommendation in the Previous Claims. 

Applicable Law

Section 85A of the Acts makes specific provision in relation to the burden of proof in Discrimination Claims.

 Section 85A (1) of the Acts states that:

“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.”

In the case of Teresa Mitchell v Southern Health Board (Cork University Hospital) AEE/99/8, [2001] 12E.L.R. 201, the Labour Court concluded that:

“a complainant 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 presumption of discrimination, that the onus shifts to the respondent to prove that there was no infringement of the principle of equal treatment”

The Labour Court has held in Hallinan v. Moy Valley ResourcesDEC-S2008-025 that to establish the relevant facts the Complainant must:

(a)    establish that he or she is covered by the protected ground;

(b)    Establish the specific treatment has allegedly taken place;

(c)     The treatment was less favourable than was or would be afforded to a person not covered by the relevant discriminatory ground.

Similarly in Minaguchi v Mr. Ray Byrne, T/A Wineport Lakeshore Restaurant DEC-E/2002/20 where Equality Officer, Vivian Jackson stated:

“It appears to me that the three key elements which need to be established by a

complainant to show that a prima facie case exists are (i) that s/he is covered by the

relevant discriminatory ground(s), (ii) that s/he has been subjected to specific treatment

and (iii) that this treatment is less favourable than the treatment someone, who is not

covered by the relevant discriminatory, has been or would be treated.”

The way in which Section 85 A has been applied has been further clarified.

In summary, the sequence of proof for the purposes of applying Section 85A  is as follows:

1. The relevant facts which purportedly engage Section 85A must be established
2. Those facts having been established, the next question is whether those established facts give rise to a presumption of discrimination
3. Assuming that such a presumption of discrimination is raised, the onus then shifts to the Respondent to “prove the contrary” meaning to prove that there was no discrimination.  

In Cork City Council v. McCarthy, Labour Court, EDA0821 had the following to say about the process:

“The type or range of facts which may be relied upon by a complainant can vary significantly from case to case. The law provides that the probative burden shifts where a complainant proves facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination. The language used indicates that where the primary facts alleged are proved it remains for the Court to decide if the inference or presumption contended for can properly be drawn from those facts. This entails a consideration of the range of conclusions which may appropriately be drawn to explain a particular fact or a set of facts which are proved in evidence. At the initial stage the complainant is merely seeking to establish a prima facie case. Hence, it is not necessary to establish that the conclusion of discrimination is the only, or indeed the most likely, explanation which can be drawn from the proved facts. It is sufficient that the presumption is within the range of inferences which can reasonably be drawn from those facts.”

In Dyflin Publications Ltd. v. Spasic, Labour Court, EDA0823, the foregoing passage was cited with approval.  In addition the Court had regard to the judgement of Mummery LJ in the U’K’ Court of Appeal in Madarassy v Nomura International plc,[2007] IRLR 246. In that case a provision similar to Section 85A was considered and the Court said that the provision:

“does not expressly or impliedly prevent the tribunal at the first stage from hearing, accepting or drawing inferences from evidence adduced by the respondent disputing and rebutting the complainant's evidence of discrimination. The respondent may adduce evidence at the first stage to show that the acts which are alleged to be discriminatory never happened; or that, if they did, they were not less favourable treatment of the complainant; or that the comparators chosen by the complainant or the situations with which comparisons are made are not truly like the complainant or the situation of the complainant; or that, even if there has been less favourable treatment of the complainant, it was not on the ground of her sex or pregnancy.

Approving of the foregoing passage, the Labour Court in Dyflin Publications held that

“…in considering if the burden of proof shifts the Court should consider any evidence adduced by the Respondent to show that, when viewed in their proper context, the facts relied upon do not support the inference contended for by the Complainant.

In Melbury Developments v. Arturs Valpeters [2010] 27 ELR 64, the Labour Court, confirmed that:

 “Mere speculation or assertions, unsupported by evidence, cannot be elevated to a factual basis upon which an inference of discrimination can be drawn (…)the burden of establishing the primary facts lay fairly and squarely on the Complainant and the language of this provision admits of no exceptions to that evidential rule."

Findings

Insofar as the Complainant alleges that he was denied access to the Secondment Panel when three Irish workers were appointed, it is clear that there were organisational reasons as set out above for this situation. Those organisational reasons were that the panel was created in January 2023 and only those who were then performing Acting Supervisor duties were eligible to apply. The Complainant was not eligible at that time as he was not then performing duties as an Acting Supervisor. There is no credible evidence that the way in which the Secondment Panel was created was in any way discriminatory as against the Complainant based on his nationality. Moreover, it is the case that the Other Panel Members, who were appointed as Acting Supervisors (as distinct from being appointed to the Secondment Panel) at the same time as the Complainant were all Irish nationals. Having considered the explanation offered by the Respondent as to how the Secondment Panel came about, I am satisfied that the criterion for appointment was a candidate at that time had to be already performing Acting Supervisor duties which is a clear and objective selection criterion and one that is unrelated to nationality.  I find that the Complainant was not eligible for consideration at that time as he was not then performing Acting Supervisor duties. There is no evidence of discrimination in relation to the selection criterion for inclusion on the Secondment Panel. The Secondment Panel was filled and closed in January 2023 and thus when, in October 2023, the Complainant and three other Irish nationals asked to be appointed to the Secondment Panel they were not appointed as that panel had already been filled and was closed. Moreover, contrary to the Complainant’s allegations in this regard, these circumstances were fully explained, not only to the Complainant but to the other three Irish nationals who raised the same issue with the Respondent.

I find that there was no discrimination against the Complainant on grounds of his nationality in relation to the refusal of his request to be appointed to the Secondment Panel as that panel was already filled and closed as of October 2023 when the Complainant made his request to be included. The issue raised by the Complainant to the effect that the way in which the Secondment Panel and his exclusion therefrom came about is a bar to his career progression is in the nature of a contractual and/or industrial relations issue and does not fall to be considered within the context of the present claim for discrimination on grounds of nationality pursuant to the Employment Equality Act 1998 as amended.

As regards the allegation that the comparators identified, namely the members of the Secondment Panel, being individuals who do like work to the Complainant nonetheless enjoy more favourable conditions I find as follows:

In the first instance the issues raised in the period referenced which is April and May 2024 fall outside of the cognisable period and would be out of time unless they are part of a continuum of discrimination. There was no evidence of a discretion being exercised in relation to the allocation of the shifts other than the Complainant’s belief that it was done to discriminate against him. Leaving aside the issue of the cognisable period, I am not satisfied that sufficient credible evidence has been adduced by the Complainant to establish that Secondment Panel Members enjoy more favourable terms than the Other Panel Members and even if this is the case, I am satisfied that the reasons for Secondment Panel Members having different terms is rooted in the manner in which the panel was originally created, which process, as I have already found, was not tainted by any discrimination against the Complainant on grounds of his nationality. It is apparent that this issue is a contractual/Industrial relations issue which is beyond the remit of a claim pursuant to the Employment Equality Act 1998 as amended. 

As regards the alleged failure by the Respondent in the internal grievance process to address the nationality issue raised by the Complainant, the Claimant alleges that his concerns regarding discrimination were raised in his written grievance but that they were not investigated and no findings on that issue were made by Ms. Mulhern when the final grievance outcome was issued on the 23rd of December 2024. The Respondent denies that it failed to investigate this issue. It was accepted that a reference to discrimination was made by the Complainant in his written grievance documentation. However, when a formal meeting was conducted with the Complainant accompanied by his trade union representative on the 3rd of October 2024, the issue was not raised or discussed. Ms. Mulhern’s evidence on this issue was not challenged by the Complainant. The discrimination issues raised in the written grievance were not advanced or particularised when the formal meeting took place and this being so, I find that it was reasonable for Ms. Mulhern to engage with the issues which were raised at that meeting, which she did. It is also noteworthy that the Complainant in his evidence did not particularise his allegations of retaliation or nationality-based discrimination otherwise than as summarised above and, as has already been found, the evidence presented does not constitute credible evidence such as to raise an inference of discrimination in accordance with the requirements of Section 85A.

With regard to the allegation that the Respondent’s failure to investigate the allegations of discrimination and retaliation was itself an act of discrimination, the Respondent argued that this was a legal impossibility and whether this was so or not, the Respondent also offered an explanation as to why the Christmas Day email did not receive a response from the Respondent. Again Ms. Mulhern provided an explanation which was not challenged and I find that this explanation is reasonable and plausible. In summary the subject heading of the Christmas Day email referenced the WRC Complaint which was due to be heard the following month in January 2025 and it is entirely understandable that the Respondent deemed it be directed towards that process and did not interpret it as a challenge to or the initiation of an appeal of the internal grievance findings. It is also apparent that the Complainant too was unsure of the status of the Christmas Day Email because he said that he presented it to the Adjudication Officer at the hearing of the Previous Claim on the 28th of January 2025. The Adjudication Officer considered the correspondence and indicated that it would not be considered as it arose subsequent to the date of presentation of the Claims that were then being heard. It is also the case that the decisions issued by that Adjudication Officer clarified that any outstanding grievance (assuming it to be personal rather than collective in nature) should be raised by way of a fresh grievance with the employer. It appears that the Complainant took immediate action in response to this and he initiated the present claim on the day after the decisions in the Previous Claims were issued. He appears to have done so without the benefit of advice from his trade union, as the Complaint form which initiated the present claim answers the question as to whether the Complainant would have representation – in the negative. In addition, the Complainant was not represented by his trade union at any stage in the course of the present claim.

The Complainant did not initiate a fresh grievance in the sense of an internal grievance. Instead, he initiated the present claim pursuant to the Equal Status Act 2000 (albeit that he intended to invoke the Employment Equality Acts) as distinct from any other type of claim. It seems to me that the Complainant wished to challenge the outcome of the grievance process but for him to do that the Respondent’s procedures provide for a third-party reference at stage D of the process when Stage C is complete. I find that Stage C was completed by Ms. Mulhern when she issued the final outcome on the 23rd of December 2024. It is clear that the Complainant was dissatisfied with that outcome which he considered to be incomplete but instead of challenging it by way of an Industrial Relations referral whether to the WRC or by whatever other third-party reference procedure as may have been appropriate he instead chose only to make an employment equality claim, based - as it must necessarily be - on the very limited and restricted basis of discrimination on grounds of nationality.

It would appear to have been open to the Complainant to appeal the grievance outcome by way of a fresh reference to the WRC pursuant to the Industrial Relations Acts and if he had taken this step such a reference would have been capable of capturing any outstanding contractual issues (other than those of a collective nature) as remained unresolved, albeit that the possibility must have existed and must arguably still exist that the outcome of such a reference would be similar to that which was issued on the 18th of March 2025. However, that is not a matter within my remit.

As to the issues which are within the remit of the present application pursuant to the Employment Equality Acts, for the avoidance of doubt I make the following findings

No credible evidence has been adduced by the Complainant from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination in relation to him either in relation to his terms or conditions of employment, the allegations made in the internal grievance procedure or from the manner in which the Complainant’s grievance was handled and concluded on the 23rd of December 2024. It therefore follows and I find that in relation to the evidence and submissions made by the Complainant which fall within the remit of the present claim, the Respondent did not discriminate against the Complainant.

CA-00070079-001 - Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000: Claim Withdrawn

CA-00070079-002 - Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998: The Respondent did not discriminate against the Complainant

Employment Equality Act 1998 - Section 85A (1) - Teresa Mitchell v Southern Health Board (Cork University Hospital) AEE/99/8, [2001] 12E.L.R. 201 - Hallinan v. Moy Valley ResourcesDEC-S2008-025 -  Minaguchi v Mr. Ray Byrne, T/A Wineport Lakeshore Restaurant DEC-E/2002/20 - Dyflin Publications Ltd. v. Spasic, Labour Court, EDA0823 - Melbury Developments v. Arturs Valpeters [2010] 27 ELR 64 – Discrimination - Nationality