Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Senior Library Assistant

A University

Representatives

 IBEC

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00002757

12/06/2024

The Worker, a Senior Library Assistant, commenced employment with the Employer on 8 August 2017. The Worker appeared in person and relied upon her submissions.

The Employer attended with its representative and a number of colleagues from the Employer. Again, submissions were relied upon at the hearing.

The Worker submitted she was discriminated against by her Employer on the basis of her disability. She states that the Employer failed to provide reasonable accommodation to enable her to carry out her duties as an employee with disabilities. Instead of engaging meaningfully with her during discussions about appropriate accommodations, her Employer placed her on mandated sick leave.

The Worker contends that this action amounted to less favourable treatment directly linked to her disability and constituted a failure by her Employer to comply with its statutory duty to reasonably accommodate her needs.

The Employer outlined the engagement with the Worker from 3 May 2022 - 20 December 2023.

The Employer stated that its actions were governed by the statutory Public Service Sick Leave Scheme and national blended‑working policy, which did not permit full‑time remote work. Occupational health had found the Worker unfit to return to site, and the Worker had not provided medical evidence to support permanent remote working as a reasonable accommodation.

The Employer said that the Worker’s request for 100% remote work arose only after workplace relations concerns and not due to medical necessity, and that her role required on‑site handling of physical materials. After exhausting paid sick leave, the Worker received Temporary Rehabilitation Remuneration. The Employer also maintained that it had to preserve fair procedures during the Worker’s complaint against her line manager and noted that earlier interpersonal issues had not been raised formally.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

I do not have jurisdiction over disputes which have not exhausted the internal procedures. Therefore, this Recommendation is limited to the subject of the appeal of her grievance dated 2 October 2023, i.e. the Worker’s return to work.

This is an Industrial Relations dispute, and not a complaint pursuant to the Employment Equality 1998-2015. Consequently, the stringent legal norms applied to determining “reasonable accommodation” under the Act do not apply here. Nonetheless, the Employer has engaged reasonably with the Worker and provided proposals in accordance with the Occupational Health advice. It is also important that in order to address the Worker’s requests that the nature of the medical issues are outlined to the Employer.