EDA2639

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No.: ADJ-00040345 (CA-00051629-006)

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-00051629-006, dated 10 February 2025) under the Employment Equality Act 1998 (‘the Act’). The Adjudication Officer decided that the within complaint 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/25/51 and ADE/25/52.

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: “My employer refused to accommodate my disability by changing the terms and conditions of my employment.”

Complainant’s Submission

The Complainant submits that the Respondent failed to provide reasonable accommodation for her disabilities during

Page 2

her employment. She told the Court that while the Respondent had implemented certain accommodations for a number of years prior to the referral of the complaint, the Respondent withdrew such accommodations and dismissed her once they received an occupational health report to the effect that her condition was to be permanent.

The Respondent’s Submission

The Respondent submits that the Complainant developed a series of injuries which were accommodated on a temporary basis. When it became apparent that her condition was to be permanent, her role was evaluated to determine what ongoing accommodations could be implemented. Following such a review, the Respondent submits that it conducted a capability review with the Complainant which concluded that the Complainant could not carry out the majority of her role. This, in turn, led to its decision to dismiss the Complainant on grounds of capacity.

Discussion and Decision

It is common case that the Respondent did seek to make accommodation for the Complainant from February 2021 onwards. The Respondent, for example, arranged matters on the Complainant’s shift so as to allow any tasks that might involve lifting over 4.5KG to be completed by other members of staff. Likewise, the Complainant was not required to perform tasks that necessitated overhead lifting. The Respondent submitted that that such accommodations were only ever intended to be temporary in nature having regard to its understanding that the Complainant’s incapacity was temporary in nature.

However, the situation changed in or around April 2022, when the Respondent received Dr Gleeson’s occupational health report. That review determined that the Complainant could not complete approximately two thirds of the normal duties associated with the general operative role and the nature of the Complainant’s condition was such that the Respondent could not ensure the Complainant’s safety in completing the normal tasks associated with her role.

Having regard to the evidence before it, the Court finds that the Respondent did make reasonable and appropriate accommodations for the Complainant for as long as was feasible. Things changed considerably, following receipt of Dr Gleeson’s report on the basis of which the Respondent determined that it was necessary to terminate the Complainant’s employment on grounds of incapacity, following a detailed and thorough capability assessment in which the Complainant herself fully participated.

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

The Court so determines.

 Page 3

	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 4