Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Hotel Employee

A Hotel

Representatives

In person

Eamonn Gibney HR Dept

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00076634-002

21/10/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00076634-003

21/10/2025

The complainant was employed by the respondent as a member of the housekeeping staff from 25th May 2025 until 4th October 2025. The complainant has submitted two complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) in relation to notice entitlements and in relation to an allegation of discrimination. The complainant has also referred the issue of unfair dismissal under the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 as she had less than one year’s service with the respondent. The recommendation on that issue is completed in a separate document.

Naming of the parties

The complainant requested that she be anonymised as she is a very private person and that the issues contained in her complaints are very personal to her. The respondent had no objection to this request. On that basis, I have decided to use my discretion and anonymise this adjudication decision.

CA-00076634-002 – Employment Equality Act 1998 complaint

The complainant represented herself at the adjudication hearing and addressed her complaints by way or oral submission and sworn evidence. The complainant stated that she was in work on 3rd October 2025 and was feeling unwell. The complainant stated that she was told to go home in a rude and aggressive way and felt distressed and anxious. The complainant stated that she was certified unfit to work because of covid but went in to work the next day even though she felt unwell. The complainant stated that she was told that she should leave or be fired which would not look good on her C.V. The complainant reiterated her position that she was given an ultimatum on 4th October 2025 and had no option but to leave the employment that day.

The complainant stated that throughout her employment, there were issues that she found upsetting. The complainant stated that she enjoyed her work and felt that she got on well with the housekeeping manager. The complainant stated that in early October 2025, her manager used a derogatory term on two occasions describing members of the traveller community. The complainant stated that she was present in a room in the courtyard that had been left untidy by some guests and it was then that the housekeeping manager used the offending term. The complainant stated that she did not say anything or approach her manager as it was difficult for her to get into confrontations with people due to her anxiety. The complainant further stated that her weight was mentioned to her due to her heavy breathing having climbed stairs while at work. The complainant stated that she was told her heavy breathing could be because of her weight but she “would lose it working here.” The complainant concluded her evidence by stating that she was a committed employee, had attended work even when she was unwell and yet had been discriminated against and had been forced out of her employment. The complainant is seeking compensation and an apology in relation to her complaint.

It was put to the complainant in cross examination that she did not raise any issues in respect of how she alleges to have been treated. It was also put to the complainant that she is in receipt of the staff handbook and is aware of the respondent’s policies and how to bring such matters to the attention of the employer. The complainant acknowledged that she did not make any formal complaints or raise the issues as she thought it was a “once off” and because she said she didn’t want to “make a scene.” It was further put to the complainant that she was not dismissed and that she chose to leave the employment and did so voluntarily.

CA-00076634-003 – Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 complaint.

The complainant is seeking that she be paid her notice entitlements in circumstances where she was forced to resign from her employment due to the conduct of the respondent towards her.

CA-00076634-002 – Employment Equality Act 1998 complaint

The respondent’s position is that the complainant has not established a prima facie case of discrimination. While the complainant stated that she was subject to discrimination and harassment on the grounds of her membership of the traveller community, she has not provided any witnesses to corroborate her evidence that the housekeeping manager used a derogatory comment on two occasions. The respondent’s position is that the housekeeping manager will provide her own evidence on this issue and that the complaint should fail.

In respect of the issues surrounding the complainant’s accusation of discrimination due to her weight and breathing issues, the respondent’s position is that it was not on notice of any issues that could be reasonably considered to be a disability which could lead to suggestions of discrimination on the grounds of disability.

In respect of her dismissal, the respondent’s position is that the complainant resigned from her employment following a conversation with her manager and where issues were raised to her informally in respect of attendance patterns and leaving work early on occasion etc. The respondent’s position is that the complainant was not dismissed for discriminatory reasons or at all.

Evidence

The Housekeeping Manager gave sworn evidence at the adjudication hearing. The witness stated that the complainant was in work on the days prior to 4th October 2025 and had stated she was feeling unwell and was unable to stay at work. The witness stated that she sat down with the complainant on 4th October 2025 and told her that her sick leave and attendance pattern were becoming a problem and that there was a possibility she could be let go if things did not improve. The witness stated that she did not dismiss the complainant but did say it would not be good for the complainant’s CV if she was dismissed. The witness stated that the complainant then stated, “I’m out of here” and left the hotel. The witness categorically denies that she ever used the derogatory word in relation to members of the traveller community and that she is shocked at the suggestion that she used this term in the complainant’s presence on two occasions. In respect of the complainant and the assertions that her weight was mentioned to her, the witness stated that she never mentioned the complainant’s weight and stated that she asked if her breathing issues were due to asthma and if she would consider getting an inhaler.

The Hotel Assistant General Manager also gave evidence by affirmation at the adjudication hearing. The witness outlined the rostering system in place at the hotel and the “alchemy” messaging system which the hotel used. The witness stated that a message had been left for her on the system but had been deleted. The witness stated that the housekeeping manager felt that the complainant would be back to work the next day. The complainant stated in response that she didn’t delete the message and nor did she resign from her employment. The complainant added that the hotel manager replied to the message and the complainant didn’t know where she stood in respect of her employment.

CA-00076634-003 – Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 complaint

The respondent’s position is that the complainant resigned and, in those circumstances, the entitlement to notice does not arise. The respondent contends that the complaint should fail.

Conclusion

The respondent concluded its submission by stating that the evidence to be preferred is that the complainant was not dismissed and left the employment voluntarily. The respondent’s representative stated that the complainant did not raise any grievances to the hotel owner or the general manager in relation to her allegations and did not act reasonably when she resigned without giving the employer the opportunity to address the issues that led to her resignation.

In respect of the discrimination complaint, the respondent noted the complete conflict of evidence on this issue and is of the view that a prima facie case of discrimination has not been made out by the complainant. The respondent stated it has strong policies in place in respect of employment equality and is seeking that the complaints be dismissed.

CA-00076634-002 – Employment Equality Act 1998 complaint

The complainant alleges that she was discriminated against on the grounds of her membership of the traveller community and because of her weight and breathing issues. The complainant also alleges that she was dismissed for discriminatory reasons and for opposing discrimination.

There is a complete conflict of evidence in relation to this complaint. The complainant stated in her sworn evidence that the house keeping manager used a derogatory slur in respect of members of the traveller community. The complainant said this occurred on two occasions. The house keeping manager was adamant in her sworn evidence that she did not and would not use that term. I also note that the complainant referenced her weight and comments made by the housekeeping manager about her weight and issues with her breathing and the house keeping manager’s evidence that the breathing issues were mentioned but only in the context of asthma and the possible need for an inhaler.

While it is difficult to reconcile such a conflict of evidence, I have reviewed the documentation submitted in relation to the complaint and with regard to the derogatory comment in particular, the complainant said in her written submission that she heard the derogatory words being said in the workplace which is very different to attributing those words to the house keeping manager on two occasions in her evidence. On balance, having considered the documents and evidence I find that the complainant’s position was inconsistent and the house keeping managers evidence is to be preferred. While the complainant also alleges to have been discriminated against due to her weight and heavy breathing, I find that these issues were not pursued to the extent that the complainant asserted she had a disability and was discriminated against as a result. The issue of weight and breathing were pursued but described as they were by the complainant; they do not establish facts from which an inference of discrimination can be drawn.

In respect of the issues that led to the end of the complainant’s employment, the complainant states on many occasions that she had no choice but to leave her job and also states on occasion that she was dismissed. On this issue, I find, on balance that the complainant left the employment on 4th October 2025 following the interaction with the housekeeping manager. I accept the respondent’s position that the complainant was not dismissed and was never told by anyone that she was dismissed. Taken at its height, the conversation with the housekeeping manager on 4th October 2025 was, in my view, nothing more than an honest conversation between two colleagues who obviously got on well together and the conversations between them were informal and honest. The messages included in the documentation informs my view that there were no real issues of concern other than possible future issues with attendance and time keeping and this was being addressed informally by the housekeeping manager to a member of her staff. I am satisfied that the interaction resulted in the complainant leaving the employment. I do not find that the complainant was dismissed for discriminatory reasons or at all.

CA-00076634-003 – Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 complaint

Having considered the submissions and evidence of the parties to this complaint, I find on the balance of probabilities that the complainant resigned from her employment when she left the premises on 4th October 2025 following an informal conversation with her manager and removed herself as an employee on the revenue website that same day. As the complainant resigned, the entitlement to notice does not arise. On that basis, I find that the complaint cannot succeed.

CA-00076634-002 – Employment Equality Act 1998 complaint

For the reasons stated above, I find that the complainant has not made out a prim facie case of discrimination. Accordingly, the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00076634-003 – Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 complaint

For the reasons stated above, I find that the complaint is not well founded.

Prima facie case of discrimination, minimum notice entitlements