Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Ewelina  Rogatka

Sodexo Ireland ltd amended on consent

Representatives

Piotr Rogatka

Elaine Hill NFP HR Solutions

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00070634-001

08/04/2025

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

CA-00070634-002

08/04/2025

On April 8, 2025, the Complainant, a lay litigant represented by her husband, submitted two complaints of Discrimination to the WRC.

The Complainant commenced work with the Respondent in March 2018 and is of Polish Origin. Prior to hearing, the complainant requested the service of a Polish Interpreter, and this was provided. The Interpreter took the oath to accompany her work.

CA-00070634-001     Complaint of Discrimination by reason of membership of the Travelling Community

CA-00070634-002 Complaint of Discrimination by reason of membership of the Travelling Community

From 8 April -29 September 2025, when I was designated this case, the complainant filed voluminous correspondence regarding her employer. She was mistaken in the role of the WRC in her complaint and seemed to approach the Commission as a depository for correspondence with her employer rather than a first instance Decision maker.

I would like to address both parties as I confirm that the WRC is not a substitute for a living and breathing employment relationship.

On 14 November 2025, I wrote to both parties in a bid to work in compliance with the WRC procedures on written submissions.

I respected the Complainant who had presented as a Lay Litigant and had chosen her partner as her preferred representative.

There had been some delay in the complainant placing the respondent contact details before the WRC. This was resolved on 30 May when the HR Suite came on record for the Respondent.

Dear Piotr Rogatka,

 I am writing today as the Adjudicator in this case due for hearing on 29 November next. You have been introduced to us as the Complainants Representative. I have commenced my investigation into this case. I require a written submission which carries a cogent and concise account of the background to this case from each participant in the case, which is complainant and respondent. I regret to inform you that the uncoordinated submissions of random emails and letters which are posted on 8 April 2025(sic) have not assisted me in my preparation for hearing. I must ask that you compile a written submission in accordance with WRC guidance documents available online.

 I am also in the process of writing to the Respondent requesting this standard of submission also. I would be grateful if you could submit a paginated document complete with appendices of relevant documents which pertain to the complaint lodged on 8 April 2025.

 Once that is received, it will be shared with the Respondent, whose responding document will be shared with the Complainant. Please be advised that the complainant has sought a sub poena for two named witnesses. I have requested that efforts be made to seek their attendance on a voluntary basis. From the documents currently on file, I cannot determine their relevance to the case. I will hear both parties on this application at hearing. I will not issue a sub poena prior to hearing. I look forward to meeting the parties at hearing. This correspondence will be shared with the Respondent for their file. Yours sincerely, Adjudicator

On 15 November 2025, the Complainants representative filed an outline submission without the benefit of corresponding documents.

On 21 November 2025, the Respondent furnished their submission in response.

At the conclusion of the hearing, I sought one outstanding document of an email from 18 April ……

The Complainant joined the Respondent employment as a member of the cleaning staff on March 6, 2018. She was placed to work on Client A site.

She worked full time for €560.00 gross per week.

A summary of her complaint form indicated that the complainant submitted that she was.

“Writing to formally file a complaint regarding Discrimination, bullying and ongoing stress that I have been experiencing in the workplace “

The narrative of the complaint concludes with

“I am therefore formally requesting urgent review and intervention from the HR Department to ensure a fair and safe working environment moving forward “

The complaints list the narrative:

1 Concerns regarding how historical medical reports were managed on site.

2 Complainant received disciplinary sanction in January 2025 but also banned from working overtime. Allocation of overtime redesignated.

3 Complainant elected to work overtime in October 2024 but was impeded in doing so.

4 Inquisitorial approaches to medical presentation.

5 Work schedule was arbitrarily changed on 4 April 2025 and indication from respondent of further performance monitoring.

6 Delay in receiving a staff uniform, no access to clocking in app.

7 Complainant had sought union support. She described feeling “intimidated, ignored and marginalised at work “

Evidence of the Complainant, by oath.

The complainant gave evidence with the support of the appointed interpreter.

The Complainant outlined that she had commenced work 7.5 years ago when worker rotation was high “people coming and going “

She said she worked diligently and she ran into difficulties about 5 years ago when she encountered a clique. She maintained that she was subject of their gossiping and reports to the supervisor.

She found this climate challenging and fainted on two occasions. She sought medical intervention and understood her medical certificates would be respected and confidential.

Ms Rogatko told the hearing that she was satisfied at work until events of 2025. She recalled her supervisor asking her to cover colleagues’ absences through illness. At first, this was ok, but after a time she refused as it was repeated over and over as she was asked to cover for two absent people in one day.

She concluded that there were not enough workers to perform the duties.

The Complainant said that she was threatened with disciplinary action for the position she adopted.

On being requested to provide a timeline for this, she was not clear but referred to one situation in November 2024.

The Complainant recalled Managers addressing staff in December 2024 and announced that.

 “There would be extra hours available for December “

The Complainant sought to register for December 15, but the manager crossed this out and other staff responded by laughing.

She has not worked at weekends since.

The Complainant acknowledged that she had received a disciplinary warning for “the clean room issue “and that she would not be permitted weekend work.

She sought union advice. She submitted that she had engaged with management at that time, but no outcome followed.

Ms Rogatko submitted that she had not received a letter which curtailed her overtime access and that it was communicated verbally. She felt betrayed.

There were no collective agreements, and she had not required workplace representation.

She decided to make a complaint to the human resource dept online. She had a difficulty in how she was being treated at the business.

When requested to expand on how she believed that she had experienced Discrimination at work, Ms Regatta responded that she had been expected to undertake extra duties on an over frequent basis. Nobody covered for her on a sustained basis.

She contended that she had not received uniforms consistent with when other employees received theirs. she placed this occurrence as March 2024

She submitted that the disparity in her treatment as result of not accessing the app to record time caused her a disadvantage as others could leave earlier. She placed this occurrence around November 28, 2024.

During cross examination, the complainant confirmed that she recalled a complaint of bullying in 2021 but could not recall if it ended in a final written warning.

In addressing events attributed to 2024/2025, the complainant accepted that she had received a final writing warning in February 2025.

She accepted that she had attended the company, Doctor.

She also accepted that the company were trying to engage with her and she had refused to meet. In response the complainant confirmed that she had been checked on not participating and she had been accused of aggressive behaviour.

On the topic of grievance management, Ms Rogatko accepted that she had been offered an opportunity to outline her issues, but she carried a strong view.

“I believed that I shouldn’t be going to HR “

In responding to the question on what outcome she was seeking? the complainant responded that she was seeking justice for all the false complaints and to have these removed from her file.

She disputed that she was unhappy at work and for her she believed that she had been discriminated against.

The Complainant clearly struggled in how the respondent perceived her work performance and disputed their reports of her behaviour, conduct and bids to seek an improvement.

By way of closing statement, the complainant’s representative concluded that his wife had worked diligently and was client endorsed. The rules associated with Bonus points system were not properly explained.

Mr Rogatko added that his wife was over managed and problems regarding a “once off “event did not justify disciplinary action.

The work force was permanently stretched. His wife had suffered physically and mentally, needing GP intervention and a pronounced weight loss of 10 kg in 4 weeks.

She was unfairly treated when she excessively penalised regarding one clean room error. The company did not demonstrate a concern regarding her health and wellbeing.

His wife was faced with continued conflict, poor supervisor relationship and she was isolated at work.

The Respondent operates a facilities management and food service business and employs several thousand people. The complainant is employed as a Cleaning Operative based on a Medical Devices Plant across two buildings, Client A.

The Respondent took issue with the complainants compiled complaints as it lacked reference to membership of the Traveller Community and centred instead on

“Alleged stress and alleged poor treatment while she was being performance managed and taken through necessary disciplinary procedures.”

The Respondent sought to anonymise the business on reputational and company grounds.

I agreed to anonymise Client A, the work base of the complainant as nobody from that site had come to hearing.

Preliminary Issue on establishing a Prima Facie Case.

The Respondent contended that the Complainant had not met the burden of proof necessary in Section 85 A of the Act as the complainant had not provided facts which linked her to less favourable treatment due to her membership of the Travelling Community.

She has not linked a discriminatory act to October 30, 2024.

There were no objective facts indicating that the treatment was influenced by a protected ground. Melbury Developments v Arturs Valpetters.

The Complainant had submitted additional correspondence which post dated the date of complaint to WRC and in additional she referred to matters outside of the cognisable period of 9 October 2024-8 April 2025.

The Complainant has forsaken the internal disputes resolution mechanisms and has refused to meet with a Human Resource Representative over August and September 2025. She has not challenged her treatment within the workplace.

The Respondent contended that the Complainant sought to rely on the WRC to the exclusion of her own workplace.

In response to the complainants tabled claims:

1 The Respondent provided a context for the overtime issue. Overtime is available at the Client site on an expression of interest basis. On 12 November 2024, the Client site made a complaint of breach of good practice regarding the complainant’s work.

The particular was deemed off limits to allow an investigation to proceed. Following a period of retraining, the respondent sought to re -assign the complainant back to this area but was met with opposition from the client site. This militated against the complainant undertaking overtime in the specific area, home to the majority of the opportunities for over time.

The Respondent then conducted an investigation into “allegations of breach of client procedures “in December 2024, which culminated into a final written warning in February 2025.

This followed a similar disciplinary sanction of final written warning in November 2023, and an improvement notice in June 2024.

In February 2025, the Complainant sought clarification on her not getting access to over time at weekends. The parties engaged, but the complainant moved her complaint to the WRC some two days later.

The Respondent experienced a delay in receiving the WRC complaint through incorrect address. The Complainant continues in employment, but without Discrimination or victimisation.

Wellbeing / Occupational Health

The Complainants reliance on a historical medical report, was received by the Company in February 2025 has been overtaken by an updated Occupational Health Report, March 2025

“Ms Rogatka is fit for full duties and no adjustments are indicated, non-medical issues appear to predominate, and medical intervention alone would not adequately resolve the situation. The suggestion was that Industrial Relations/ Human Resource issues are explored through management”.

The Complainant appears to have sidelined her employer in favour of the WRC.

1 She has refused to engage with management.

2 The Complainant has been provided all policies and offers to meet, without utilisation.

3 She has submitted historical medical certificates to the WRC rather than her employer.

Uniform/ Clocking In system.

1 The Complainant was provided with uniforms on request.

2 The clocking app has two options of access 1 fingerprint 2 an app.

The first system was available to the complainant. Her phone was not found to be compliant with the app due to age of the apparatus. The complainant was offered to continue on fingerprint or to use a phone at reception.

Events Post dating 8 April 2025

The Respondent has tried to manage the complainant, but she has resisted this management.

On November 11, 2025, the complainant was once again issued with a final written warning. She had declined to participate in the process, which had emanated from her refusal to carry out delegated tasks early in 2025.

The complainant has chosen not to exercise her right of appeal at any of the matters of which she had complained.

Current position:

On 10 October 2025, the Respondent placed the complainant on paid suspension since October 2025. The complainant has refused to engage.

The Respondent took issue with the medical documentation which described that the complainant was “suffering from bullying and harassment and is under the care of her husband “rather than an unfitness for work or participation in company procedures.

The Respondent was strident in opposing the allegation of Discrimination and expressed a frustration on how the complainant sought to bypass her employer in favour of the WRC.

They were cogent in the efforts they had made to manage the complainant’s problematic performance despite her high level of resistance to this. The complainant ha snot experienced any financial loss.

The Respondent, reliant on Graham Anthony and co ltd. v Mary Margetts EDA  038 called on the complainant to appreciate that it takes more than membership of a protected ground to prove discrimination. Facts are necessary.

What is required is a demonstration of a link the protected ground and the alleged treatment.

Rescon ltd v Scanlan

The Respondent submitted that Discrimination falls for consideration where there is a difference in treatment due to a protected ground .m It is more than being disappointed at being “treated in a manner that is less than ideal “

Dargusiz v Lough Corrib Engineering ltd

The Respondent submitted that the complainant had not reached the necessary burden of proof in the case as the issues at the centre of the case were performance issues which required the corrective action of a disciplinary sanction.

“None of these incidents contain any element reference or inference of racial motivation or bias towards membership of the travelling community “

The Respondent contended that the claims as submitted should be dismissed as she had not reached the necessary burden of proof, advanced a comparator, raised an internal grievance or actioned any local appeal against the respondents’ earnest attempts to manage her challenging performance at work.

Oliveira v Ryan Air Dac

Evidence of Regina Flavin, Human Resource Manager, by affirmation

Ms Flavin provided a summary of the journey the company has travelled with the complainant as she was not directly involved.

She recounted the plant difficulties with the complainant who just did not seem to listen to the company responses to her queries.

Ms Flavin submitted that the complainant had forsaken the company processes in favour of external legal advice.

In response to cross examination, Ms Flavin outlined the flexibility the company expects is inbuilt into the contract of employment.

Mr Rogatka adopted a confrontational approach as he sought to explore the complainants’ reported issues.

Ms Flavin gave an account on how a request for cover might emerge set against colleague absence.

Ms Flavin sought to explain that the complainant had presented as a solitary figure in conflict with the company. There was no universal dissent amongst her colleagues.

There was no site acceptance that she be permitted to work alone.

Ms Flavin outline the disciplinary background pre and post the complaint to the WRC.

Ms Flavin rejected the premise that the complainant had been ignored as she had received all documents she requested.

The Complainant had access to overtime on block 1 and her average time worked was 23 hrs per week.

In redirect, Ms Flavin emphasised the flexibility clause in the contract of employment.

The Respondent agreed to furnish a record of the meeting with the complainant dated 18 April 2025.

This was received as promised but was clarified as referencing April 10, 2025, discussions.

On 3 December 2025, the WRC forwarded this note to the complainant’s representative, requesting a response within 14 days, but none was forthcoming.

In conclusion, the Respondent sought that the claims be recognised as frivolous and misconceived.

The Complainant has presented as a problematic employee who has difficulty being managed.

The Complainant has not drawn a link between her ground of discrimination and her treatment at work.

She has not advanced facts which demonstrate either Direct or Indirect Discrimination in her work.

The Complainant chose to present her case against a company who did not regard her. The Company challenged that view and summarised the lengths adopted through fair procedures to reach an improvement in the working relationship, but the complainant chose not to engage.

The complainant has been offered additional support, an opportunity to raise a grievance, appeal a disciplinary sanction, Occupational Health, who deemed her fully fit and all were met with a declaration of “non engagement” pending the WRC process.

The Respondent denies any of the allegations of retaliation against the complainant and codified the most recent disciplinary process as “related to other matters “.

Once more, they sought for the claims to be dismissed.

I have been requested to reach a decision in each of the live complaints of Discrimination before the WRC.

In reaching my decision, I have had regard for the documentation on file, both party’s submissions and oral evidence.

I have also had regard for the complainants lay litigant status, who while was supported by her husband was not represented.

The Respondent was represented by Professional Representation at NFP, formerly, HR Suite.

I faced some difficulty in securing clarification on just what grounds the complainant wished to run her case, as she confirmed that she was not a member of the Travelling community, but was reticent in deciding her ground.

I offered a recess and endeavoured to explain the key aspects of the law to the complainant and her husband. I addressed the hearing in explaining that I needed to be clear just what protected ground the complainant was relying on to prove Discrimination in this case. I also explained that I was seeking that the complainant identifies a comparator for that purpose.

In addressing the parties, I was mindful of the parameters of caselaw on just what can be gleaned from a non-statutory complaint form, which is not to be confused with pleadings in the ordinary Courts. County Louth VEC v Equality Tribunal and Brannigan[2009] IEHC 370 (High Court) and Louth VEC v Equality Tribunal [2016] IESC 40 (Supreme Court).

I fully accept that the complainant, as a Lay Litigant does not in the ordinary course of events have access to the Employment Equality textbooks such as Bolger, Bruton and Kimber, Employment Equality Law, 2 nd Edition 2022.

 However, this is a case which implied Solicitor involvement but none was apparent on the papers or at hearing.

The claims were expanded from 8 April 2025 to the compilation of submissions one week prior to hearing.

The Complainant submitted reports of:

Alleged Discrimination, no ground or comparator specified.

Victimisation

Discharging sensitive medial information 

False information on the personnel file for the complainant / data protection issues

I have some difficulty with this ambitious expansion as it veered outside of my area of Jurisdiction, including as it targeted matters of data protection and Civil law.

I have included an extract from Chapter 16, Bolger, Bruton and Kimber at 16-38 for the attention of the parties:

It is then customary to be asked to set out the claim in writing in detailed legal submissions, including relevant documentation which should be attached. Ideally these should be provided when the claim is lodged with the WRC, and any documentation either side wishes to furnish to the Adjudication Officer must be furnished at least 15 working days in advance of the hearing.

 Any documentation sent by either side to the WRC is copied to the other side who are invited to respond. Supplementary written submissions may be exchanged between the parties prior to the hearing date. The procedure adopted at the Workplace Relations Commission prior to and during the hearing is designed to provide an accessible, cost-effective and efficient way of adjudicating upon claims of discrimination.

The Complainant submitted that she had been discriminated against on grounds of her membership of the Travelling Community.

In spite of my best attempts to allow her time to re consider this categorisation of claim and her lack of a pro offered comparator, she was unable, with assistance to amend this claim.

Ms Rogatko assured me she was not a member of the Travelling Community.

Side by side with this dilemma, I encountered a Respondent who was incredulous at the behaviour of the complainant on site, where they contended she had shut down all interactions on site pending the processing of her case to the WRC. They submitted the company has as a consequence been deprived of their right to manage the contract of employment.

The Complainant stands suspended since October 2025.

My jurisdiction is drawn from the Employment Equality Act, 1998, specifically Sections 2,

"Traveller community" means the community of people commonly so called who are identified (both by themselves and others) as people with a shared history, culture and traditions including, historically, a nomadic way of life on the island of Ireland.

Section 6

Discrimination for the purposes of this Act.

6.[(1) For the purposes of this Act and without prejudice to its provisions relating to discrimination occurring in particular circumstances discrimination shall be taken to occur where—

(a) a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as the "discriminatory grounds") which—

(i) exists,

(ii) existed but no longer exists,

(iii) may exist in the future, or

(iv) is imputed to the person concerned,

Section 8

Discrimination by employers etc.

8.— (1) In relation to—

(a) access to employment,

(b) conditions of employment,

(c) training or experience for or in relation to employment,

(d) promotion or re-grading, or

(e) classification of posts,

an employer shall not discriminate against an employee or prospective employee, and a provider of agency work shall not discriminate against an agency worker.

The burden of proof as set down in Section 85A of the Act commences with the complainant.

Burden of proof.

85A.— (1) Where in any proceeding’s facts are established by or on behalf of a complainant from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination in relation to him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.

(2) This section is without prejudice to any other enactment or rule of law in relation to the burden of proof in any proceedings which may be more favourable to a complainant.

In the instant case, I have been met with a complaint form which is clear to me was structured to be a complaint to the Human Resource Dept dated 8 April 2025.

I am fortified in my view of this by the penultimate paragraph:

“I am therefore formally requesting urgent review and intervention from the HR Department to ensure a fair and safe working environment moving forward “

The letter/ complaint form refers to Union representation and placed the complainant as a solitary and marginalised figure in her workplace.

However, the complaint before me is headed as a complaint x2 under the Employment Equality Act 1998 as Discrimination.

The Respondent has called for the complaint to be dismissed as frivolous and vexatious.

Section 77 (A) of the Act permits dismissal of a claim. However, this action is reserved for the minority as the WRC is a Court in terms of this Legislation and it is vital that a claim is examined.

Dismissal of claim.

77A.— (1) The Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission may dismiss a claim at any stage if of opinion that it has been made in bad faith or is frivolous, vexatious or misconceived or relates to a trivial matter.

I have not been able to secure a confirmation of a protected ground on which the complainant wishes to progress this case. Neither have I been able to secure a confirmation of a comparator. This is a fatal flaw.

On the day of hearing, the complainant did not make application to compel the attendance of witnesses.

However, I cannot cease the case here.

I spent many hours preparing for hearing and hold a genuine interest in seeking to understand the facts of this case. I listened carefully to both parties at hearing and have reflected on the oral submissions and evidence adduced.

The Complainant came to hearing carrying an anger that did not diminish through the hearing. She believed that she had been wronged and treated differently. She had also placed her own embargo on internal communication with her managers. She held an unshakeable view that she was right and they were wrong.

She wanted the WRC to punish her employer. She submitted hundreds of pages in support of that goal, most of which postdated the submission of the complaint.

The WRC Adjudication service is not engaged in daily policing of an employment relationship. In my role, I am seeking to investigate if the Respondent has acted in breach of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 within 6 months preceding reception of the claim or by separate submission on a continuum.

The Employer held an opposing view. They came to hearing with a strongly stated viewpoint that the complainant had cut them out of the working relationship in favour of the WRC.

They set out a chronology of prolonged dissent in the complainants’ case. She did not wish to undertake work when colleagues were out sick. She took issue with being banned from over time in the clean room yet did not appeal her Disciplinary sanction of February 2025.

The Clean room ban exhibited in the Respondent papers is unequivocal. It may have assisted the complainant to hear it from the Client A herself, but it stands written by their quality Operations Manager dated 25 November 2024 and is illustrative, if not probative.

Provision for such an area ban is permitted in the contract signed by the Complainant on 8 July 2020.

The Respondent countered the items of grievance raised by the Complainant up to including that she continued to undertake overtime, just not in the clean room.

I must accept that the complainant was struggling within her workplace and she interpreted this feeling of isolation as Discrimination.

 However, Discrimination is more than a feeling, and it built on objective grounds and must be directed at a Comparator. Dargusiz v Lough Corrib Engineering ltd

I must conclude that this is a working relationship that was in disarray and melt down at the hearing in November 2025. I waited for the Complainants response to the very cogent account of the April 10, 2025, meeting with the complainant. When the complainant did not respond, I must conclude the record stands.

This is a record by the Disciplinary Manager from February 2025, which captured a truly broken employment relationship. The issues recorded followed the application of a final written warning, which stood without an appeal. The record, while submitted without the benefit of oral evidence goes to the core of this case. A series of grievances which remain untested.

I have examined the facts of this case and find that the matters raised before the WRC on 8 April 2025 by the complainant are untested grievances in the workplace.

These are grievances which would have benefitted from good workplace representation as permitted in the contract of employment.

I have had regard for Nowak and Data Commissioner and Dervajan v KPMG et all [2006] IEHC 81 Hannon J

The latter referred to a challenge on how interest was calculated at a bank for a protracted period. Hannon J determined that the case was an abuse of process, frivolous and vexatious warranting an Isaac Wunder order.

I find that in the instant case, the complainant was lost in her employment and had denied herself the chance of rescue as she had locked away all the tools for recovery when she ceased engaging with her employer.

I cannot infer from the facts before me that the complainant was discriminated against on any identifiable ground or by comparative analysis.

Instead, the complainant has tabled a grievance to her employer dated April 8, 2025. This should have followed the company procedural framework and was misdirected to the WRC.

The Complainant misconceived both claims, and I dismiss the complaints under Section 77 (A) (1) of the Act.

CA-00070634-001  

   I find the claim is misconceived by the Complainant and I dismiss the complaint under Section 77 (A) (1) of the Act.

CA-00070634-002

I find the claim is misconceived by the Complainant and I dismiss the complaint under Section 77 (A) (1) of the Act.

Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.

CA-00070634-001  

   I find the claim is misconceived by the Complainant and I dismiss the complaint under Section 77 (A) (1) of the Act.

CA-00070634-002

I find the claim is misconceived by the Complainant and I dismiss the complaint under Section 77 (A) (1) of the Act.

Dismissal of Complaint recognised as untested grievances