EDA2637

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No.: ADJ-00040345 (CA-00051629-004)

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-00051629-004, dated 10 February 2025) under the Employment Equality Act 1998 (‘the Act’). The Adjudication Officer decided that the within complaint of victimisation was not well-founded. 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/2532; HSC/25/5; ADE/25/50; 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 victimized for making a complaint to the WRC.” No example of alleged victimisation is stated in the complaint nor does the Complainant specify therein when the alleged victimisation (last) occurred.

When asked to outline her complaint to the Court, the Complainant referred to an earlier complaint under the Act

Page 2

which she had referred to the Workplace Relations Commission in September 2020. She told the Court that, in a general way, her relationship with the Respondent went downhill from that late 2020 onwards. Rather than attempt to resolve issues with her, she said, the Respondent contrived over time to dismiss her. She made reference to a ‘without prejudice’ discussion she had had on one occasion when she was legally represented. She said that a similar discussion took place after the incident of 15 February 2022. However, when asked to explain how she was alleging that such conversations constituted victimisation within the meaning of section 74(2) of the Act, and how she believed that they may been connected to her September 2020 complaint under the Act, the Complainant was unable to do so.

Discussion and Decision

Having carefully considered the Complainant’s submissions and evidence in relation to the within claim, the Court finds that claim is not well-founded. The Complainant, in the Court’s view, has done no more than make a generalised complaint to the effect that her relationship with the Respondent began, from her perspective, to deteriorate from late 2020 onwards. She has not offered any evidence from which an inference could be made by the Court that her September 2020 complaint under the Act was a causative factor in the deterioration in the relationship. It follows that the Complainant has not satisfied the requirements of section 85A of the Act and has not established a prima facie case such as to shift the burden of proof to the Respondent.

The decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld and the appeal fails.

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