ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00067222

Parties:

Complaint(s):

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  15/07/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Breiffni O'Neill

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

The complaint was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission on 20 February 2026. On the complaint form, the Complainant selected "Discrimination/Equality/Equal Status" as the legislative basis of her claim. She identified the Respondent as a provider of goods, services or facilities, selected the disability ground, alleged discrimination in the fields of accommodation and failure to provide reasonable accommodation, and sought redress under section 21 of the Equal Status Act 2000. The Respondent was described throughout the form in its capacity as a service provider. Importantly, the section headed "Position Held" was left blank.

The complaint form therefore presents as a coherent complaint under the Equal Status Act. In particular, the allegation of a failure to provide reasonable accommodation for a disability is one which falls within the Equal Status Act as regards service providers and is not, on its face, necessarily indicative of an employment-related complaint. There is nothing in the complaint form itself which expressly states that the Complainant was an employee of the Respondent, that she was challenging a workplace decision, or that she was invoking rights arising under any other Acts.

However, the complaint form is not the only material before me. Following the referral of the complaint, the Complainant furnished a detailed written submission on 6 July 2026. In that submission, the Complainant explained that she had been employed as a paramedic, had been absent from work on sick leave, had participated in return-to-work meetings with management, had sought redeployment within the HSE, had pursued an internal grievance concerning the handling of her return-to-work options, and ultimately retired on ill-health grounds. She expressly identified the accommodation sought as redeployment and stated that the alleged failure related to the Respondent's handling of that process.

The submission repeatedly refers to meetings with managers regarding her return to work, occupational health assessments, consideration of redeployment opportunities, internal grievance procedures and her retirement from employment. The Complainant also accepted that she had been employed as a paramedic with the HSE.

Accordingly, while the complaint form points towards a complaint under the Equal Status Act, the subsequent particulars supplied by the Complainant and the evidence presented at hearing made it clear that the substance of her complaint concerned the Respondent's treatment of her in the context of her employment, her return-to-work arrangements, the consideration of redeployment as a reasonable accommodation measure, and matters leading ultimately to her retirement.

The difficulty in this case is that there is a clear tension between the form in which the complaint was initiated and the case which emerged through the Complainant's later submissions and oral evidence. The form itself does not obviously support the proposition that this was intended as any other piece of legislation. On the contrary, the selections made are entirely consistent with a complaint under the Equal Status Act by a service user alleging a failure to provide reasonable accommodation.

Nevertheless, on the day of the hearing, it was confirmed that the complaint actually being advanced concerned alleged failures by an employer in dealing with an employee affected by disability. Such matters fall, as a matter of law, within a different piece of legislation.

The question is whether I can simply treat the proceedings as though a complaint within a different piece of legislation had been referred.

In my view, I cannot. While it is appropriate for an Adjudication Officer to examine the substance of a complaint and not merely its label, there must nevertheless be a sufficient connection between the claim referred and the claim ultimately adjudicated upon. In the present case, the complaint as commenced expressly invoked the Equal Status Act, identified the Respondent as a service provider, sought redress under that Act and contained no indication that an employment-related complaint was being made.

Although the later submissions make clear that the grievance actually concerns employment matters, those submissions cannot alter the fact that the complaint referred to the Workplace Relations Commission was an Equal Status complaint.

I therefore conclude that the complaint before me must be considered as the complaint that was referred, namely a complaint under the Equal Status Act. Having reached that conclusion, I further find that the factual matters ultimately relied upon by the Complainant concern her employment relationship with the HSE and the alleged failure to provide workplace accommodation through redeployment and return-to-work measures. Those matters fall outside the scope of the Equal Status Act.

Decision:

Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act.

Dated:   06-08-26

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Breiffni O'Neill

Key Words: