Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Declan  Woods

Tesco Ireland Ltd

Representatives

Self Represented

IBEC Representative

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-00074643-001

20/08/2025

The Complainant is employed as a Dot Com delivery driver and maintained that he was being discriminated against because of his age in that he was given heavier and more loads to deliver than younger staff.  He also alleged a Manager made an ageist comment regarding him.

The Complainant advised he is 63 years old and has worked for Tesco for almost 19 years.

He alleged he had been treated less favourably because of his age and that the discrimination treatment he experienced forms a pattern rather than being one isolated incident.

The Complainant submitted that for several years, he had concerns about the allocation of deliveries and routes and felt that he was being picked on by his Team Leader.

The Complainant went out sick on March 4th 2025 for 9 months. The Complainant submitted his complaint to the WRC on August 20th 2025.

Before he went out sick, he raised these concerns verbally with his manager on several occasions. He subsequently confirmed in his grievance statement that he had raised these concerns approximately “4 or 5 times” and that nothing had been done about them. He said this is important because it confirms that his concerns were raised at the time and were not allegations made for the purpose of his WRC complaint. On 4 March 2025, matters came to a head and he went out sick with stress. He  remained absent for approximately nine months.

The Complainant alleged that he was been given heavier work loads, more deliveries and/or longer routes compared to younger staff.

The Complainant alleged that a Manger had wrongly quoted him in a public place and with another Driver present in a conversation about  him being “too old to go upstairs again”. The Complainant stated he cycled to work and was fit and able to go up a stairs and he did not say this alleged remark.

The Respondent set out a lengthy and comprehensive investigation process they conducted into the complaints by the Complainant and the outcomes which concluded there was no basis to the complaints.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant has failed to satisfy the legal threshold required to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the grounds of age Under Section 85A of the Employment Equality Act, the burden of proof rests on the Complainant to establish a prima-facie case of discrimination.

The Respondent stated the cognisable period was just a couple of days.

For the Complainant to succeed he must show that; (a) He was treated less favourably than a comparable employee in a similar situation; (b) This less favourable treatment occurred; and (c) The treatment was based on the ground of ‘Age’

In the present case, the Complainant’s claim rests entirely on the subjective belief that dotcom team leader Mr. K  was "manipulating" delivery allocations to "torment" the Complainant due to his age. The Complainant formally conceded during the internal appeal process: "I cannot prove that he's moving me, but Tesco can’t prove that that he's not moving names and trips. " The Respondent submits that as a matter of law, it is not required to "prove a negative" to counter uncorroborated assertions. Since the Complainant has produced no objective comparative data showing that younger drivers were treated more favourably under similar conditions, the burden of proof does not shift, and the claim must be dismissed. Even if the WRC should find that the Complainant established a presumption of discrimination (which is denied), the Respondent has fully rebutted any such presumption by demonstrating that the allocation of duties is governed by an entirely automated, objective, and age-blind routing system (Bumblebee/GHS Infinity).

The uncontradicted operational evidence demonstrates that:

(a) All delivery routes, order volumes, and van weights are calculated centrally by the automated Bumblebee system based strictly on neutral logistical criteria (geographic postcodes, customer-selected time slots, and order volumes). 

(b) Local Team Leaders merely allocate driver names to predefined trip numbers. Factual testimony from Mr. K and Mr. S  confirms that at the point of driver assignment, the system screen does not display route details, customer locations, or van weights.

(c) The Complainant is systematically placed at the top of the daily driver roster (occupying Trip 1 or Trip 2) as an operational accommodation due to his historical contract starting at 9:00 AM. This ensures he can load and depart immediately rather than sitting idle. The Respondent submits that there is a complete absence of any discriminatory intent, capability, or practice. The allocation of work is entirely random, neutral, and operationally justified, applying consistently across all 52 dotcom drivers at the store regardless of age (d) Moreover, when drivers are assigned to trips, the names are entered top-down based strictly on service length. At this point of name allocation, the overall weight, volume, or route are completely invisible on the system screen. It is physically impossible for Mr. K  to target the Complainant with a "heavier van" because he cannot see the van's weight until the manifest prints 15 minutes before departure, long after the driver has been assigned.

The Automated Routing system: The Complainant alleges that older drivers are systematically assigned heavier workloads and more challenging routes, while easier deliveries are allocated to younger drivers. This allegation is inconsistent with the operation of the Respondent's delivery routing system. The Respondent uses the centrally managed Bumblebee Routing System, which automatically designs delivery routes and assigns customer orders to specific van trips based on objective operational criteria, including: • The geographic area of the delivery (for example, city versus rural routes); • Travel times between delivery addresses; • Delivery time slots selected by customers; and • The volume and number of items included in each customer order. All delivery orders are processed and allocated by the system using these criteria. Local stores and management do not control or influence how orders are distributed between vans during the route-planning process. While it is technically possible for a route allocation to be amended manually after it has been generated by the system, a thorough investigation was conducted and found absolutely no evidence that any such manual intervention occurred in this case. There is therefore no factual basis to support the Complainant's assertion that delivery allocations were manipulated, whether on the grounds of age or otherwise.

Local Van and Driver Allocation: Once the Bumblebee system has automatically generated a van trip, local Dotcom management or team leaders are required to assign that trip to a specific vehicle registration and driver. For example, a system-generated trip such as "001HD10" may be assigned to a particular van registration (e.g. 252-D-12345) and driver (e.g. Joe Bloggs). This allocation process is carried out on a strictly objective and operational basis. Depending on the store, van trips may be assigned alphabetically, in roster order, or by following another standardised dispatch process. At no stage is a driver's age considered as a factor in the allocation of van trips. Importantly, when the van trip is assigned to a driver, local management does not have visibility of, nor does it assess, the overall weight, kilogram load, or detailed contents of the van trip. The trip has already been compiled by the Bumblebee system based on 16 objective routing and customer-order criteria. Consequently, neither the route assignment nor the subsequent allocation of a trip to a driver provides any opportunity for management to favour or disadvantage drivers based on age or any other protected characteristic.

Addressing Specific Allegations The Complainant's assertion that he was consistently allocated heavier loads, a greater number of orders, or more difficult routes than younger drivers is wholly unsupported and is directly contradicted by the objective evidence available to the Respondent. Throughout the investigation, the Respondent reviewed the relevant routing and allocation processes and found no evidence that the Complainant was treated less favourably than any other driver in respect of route allocation, delivery volume, load weight, or the number of customer orders assigned. The available data demonstrates that routes and van trips were generated by the Bumblebee system using objective operational criteria and subsequently assigned to drivers in accordance with standardised local dispatch procedures. Furthermore, neither the Bumblebee system nor the local allocation process takes account of a driver's age. The Complainant has not provided any objective evidence to support the allegation that younger drivers were systematically assigned lighter loads, fewer orders, or easier routes. On the contrary, the evidence reviewed by the Respondent indicates that delivery allocations were made on a neutral, operational basis and applied consistently across all drivers.

The 25 vs. 17 Orders Claim The Complainant's specific claim that he was regularly allocated 25 orders while younger drivers were only assigned 17 was not supported by the van control sheets, which demonstrated a standard and equitable distribution of trips. Local management has clarified that a higher number of orders does not automatically correlate to an 'unfavourable' or more physically demanding route. For example, a van trip containing only three orders may require extensive, long-distance driving into rural areas, resulting in a highly demanding and time-consuming route. Conversely, a van trip with 17 orders may consist of quick, short-distance deliveries concentrated within a single, local housing estate, which is physically easier and faster. Furthermore, a small number of orders for a commercial entity (IE a crèche) can weigh significantly more and require far more physical effort than a larger number of small residential orders. So, while the Respondent refutes the allegations that the Complainant was regularly allocated 25 orders while younger colleagues were provided with 17, the Complainants attempt to equate simple numbers of orders to ‘less favourable treatment’ is incorrect.

Complaint Re; Alleged System Manipulation The Complainant has alleged that a Team Leader manipulated the routing and allocation process in order to treat him less favourably. This is a serious allegation and was examined in detail during both the investigation and the subsequent appeal process. Following a thorough review of the available evidence, including witness accounts and operational records, no evidence whatsoever was identified to support this claim. The allegation was also categorically and unequivocally denied by the Team Leader concerned. Furthermore, the investigation and appeal established that there is no factual basis for suggesting that the Team Leader had either the opportunity or the motivation to manipulate delivery allocations in the manner alleged. The evidence demonstrated that any manual adjustments to routes, changes to dispatch sequences, or delays in vehicle departures arise solely from legitimate operational requirements. In particular, dispatch timing is frequently dependent on warehouse pickers completing the selection and preparation of customer orders, a process that is entirely outside the control of the Dotcom Team Leader. The investigation found no evidence of any departure from standard operating procedures, no evidence of discriminatory manipulation of routes or workloads, and no evidence that the Complainant was treated differently from any other driver. Accordingly, the Respondent firmly rejects the allegation that the routing or dispatch process was manipulated to the Complainant's detriment and maintains that all 18 operational decisions were made on the basis of legitimate business and logistical considerations.

Van allocation data being challenged by Complainant: The Complainant challenged the validity of the van control sheets on the basis that the weights were handwritten. The Respondent has clarified that the standard van schedule does not automatically print weights. The detailed daily manifests that do show weights could not be reprinted because the two-week system window for reprinting had expired by the time of the investigation. To assist the investigator, Manager Mr. S viewed the historical weight data on the live computer screen and manually transcribed the weights onto the sheets specifically to demonstrate that the Complainant received a standard, normal variation of heavy and light loads. This transcription was done to provide objective clarity.

The Respondent Manager denied she made an ageist comment regarding the Complainants capability to go up a stairs and advised that it was the Complainant that made the comment.

The Respondent has investigated the Complainant’s allegations of age discrimination by way of a comprehensive internal investigation followed by appeal. Both stages concluded that the allegations of age discrimination are entirely unfounded. The allocation of work is governed by an automated and centralised routing system (Bumblebee) designed around objective operational metrics. The local driver assignment is performed on an objective, random basis. There is no evidence of age-related bias, system manipulation, or less favourable treatment of the Complainant whatsoever. It is the company position that the claim of Age based discrimination must be dismissed on the basis that no prima facie case has been made, and no evidence of less favourable treatment has been demonstrated by the Complainant.

The Law

The Employment Equality Act prohibit discrimination on the ground of age.

Section 6(1) of the Act provides as follows :

6.—(1) For the purposes of this Act, discrimination shall be taken to occur where, on any of the grounds in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as “the discriminatory grounds”), one person is treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated.

(2) As between any 2 persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are; ……

(f) that they are of different ages, but subject to subsection (3) (in this Act referred to as “the age ground”),

The alleged discrimination in this case is that younger employees are getting preferential treatment compared to the Complainant in respect of routes and load weights. No specific Comparator name was provided.

The 2015 Workplace Relations act Section 41 states;  

I find that the Complainant was not discriminated against.

Age Discrimination