EDA2636

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No.: ADJ-00040345 (CA-00051629-003) 

BACKGROUND:

The Employeeappealed the decision of the WRC Adjudication Officer under Section 83 (1), Employment Equality Acts, 1998 to 2015 on 5 March 2025. A Labour Court hearing took place on 14 July 2026.

The following is the Determination of the Court:

Page 1

DETERMINATION:

Background to the Appeal

This is an appeal by Ms Kristina Viksna (‘the Complainant’) from a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00040345/CA-00051629-003, dated 10 February 2025) under the Employment Equality Act 1998 (‘the Act’). The Adjudication Officer decided that the within complaint was a duplication of related complaints brought simultaneously by the Complainant under the Act. Notice of Appeal was received in the Court on 5 March 2025. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 14 July 2026. The determination herein should be read along with the Court’s decisions in: PW/25/32; HSC/25/5; ADE/25/51; ADE/25/52 and ADE/25/53.

The Factual Background

The Complainant was employed as a General Operative by Cardinal Health Ireland Manufacturing Limited (‘the Respondent’) between November 2005 and 27 April 2022. The Complainant referred prior claims to the Workplace Commission on 30 September 2020 under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 and under the Employment Equality Act 1998. Those claims were decided by an Adjudication Officer whose decisions are dated 24 February 2023. The Complainant appealed therefrom to the Labour Court. The Labour Court issued its decisions on the appeals on 9 October 2023.

The Complainant, while working on her evening shift on 15 February 2022, appears to have experienced a severe reaction to an alcohol-based cleansing agent that was routinely used in her work environment. This resulted in her being brought to the local hospital in Tullamore for assessment and treatment. She was not admitted and allowed to go home later that evening. She informed the Respondent the following morning that she was fit to return to work. However, the Respondent notified her, by telephone on the 16th and by letter of the same date, that it would have to assess the events that had occurred on the 15th from a health and safety perspective and that it would require medical confirmation of her ability to use and work with alcohol spray going forward before she could return to the workplace. The Respondent organised an assessment of the Complainant by its occupational health specialist, Dr Gleeson. Having reviewed Dr Gleeson’s subsequent report with the Complainant, and having completed a capability assessment with her, the Respondent terminated the Complainant’s employment on grounds of capacity with effect from 27 April 2022.

The Complaint

The Complainant referred the within complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission on 11 July 2022. In the narrative section of the Workplace Relations Commission complaint form, the Complainant outlined her complaint as follows:

“I was dismissed as a result of my decision to refer a case to the WRC as a result of mistreatment and failure to address my concerns in relation to health and safety. My employer refused to provide reasonable accommodation in relation to my work injury.”

Page 2

Discussion and Decision

It appears to the Court that the first element of the within complaint as outlined by the Complainant in her Workplace Relations Commission form is a duplication of her complaint under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 and, therefore, does not fall to be reconsidered in this decision. The Court’s decision on the appeal in relation to that matter bears reference number HSC/25/5.

In the second limb of her complaint, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent failed to make reasonable accommodation for her ‘work injury’. As the complaint under the Act was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 11 July 2022, the period encompassed by the complaint runs from 12 January 2022. The alleged injury at work occurred on 15 February 2022 and the Complainant’s employment was terminated on 27 April 2022. The cognisable period is, therefore, 16 February to 27 April 2022.

It is common case that the Complainant was not in the workplace during the cognisable period as the Respondent had decided to refer the Complainant for assessment to Dr Gleeson as it had concerns about her ability to work with alcohol-based cleansing agents in the future in the light of the incident that had necessitated her visit to the hospital on 15 February 2022. It is also common case – as found by the Court in HSC/25/5 – that Dr Gleeson’s assessment of the Complainant prompted a capability assessment process which culminated in the Respondent’s decision to terminate her employment on grounds of incapacity. It is entirely unclear from the Complainant’s evidence to the Court, what disability – if any – within the meaning of the Act, she developed following the incident of 15 February 2022. Needless to say, the obligations imposed by section 16 of the Act can only arise in circumstances where an employee has established the existence of a relevant disability and his/her employer knows or ought to know of it.

For all the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the within complaint is not well-founded. The appeal fails and the decision of the Adjudication Officer is varied accordingly.

The Court so determines.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Alan Haugh
CC	______________________
27/07/2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be in writing and addressed to Ms Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.

 Page 3