Case Number: ADJ-00021550. Workplace Relations Commission.
| Docket Number | ADJ-00021550 |
| Hearing Date | 08 January 2020 |
| Date | 01 May 2020 |
| Year | 2020 |
| Court | Workplace Relations Commission |
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00021550
Parties:|
|
Complainant |
Respondent |
|
Anonymised Parties |
Law Clerk |
Law Firm |
|
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-00028170-001 |
03/05/2019 |
|
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 |
CA-00028170-002 |
03/05/2019 |
|
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 |
CA-00028170-003 |
03/05/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/01/2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marie Flynn
Procedure:In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
The Complainant’s complaint referral form was received by the WRC on 3 May 2019. In respect of the complaint under the Employment Equality Acts, both parties have adduced evidence in relation to events which occurred after that date. It is clear from the statutory provisions that govern the referral of a complaint under section 77 of the Employment Equality Acts that the time limit runs for a period of six months (or twelve months on extension) from the date of acts which are alleged to constitute discrimination or victimisation. This provision has been interpreted by the Labour Court to mean that “any incidents which occurred after the complaint had been presented could not have been comprehended by the claim and therefore cannot be relied upon for the purpose of obtaining redress” (EDA1830 HSE v Patricia Cullen Killoran).
Pursuant to section 77 of the Employment Equality Acts, my jurisdiction in relation to the herein complaints does not, therefore, extend beyond the date on which the complaint referral form was received by the WRC. Accordingly, I have confined my investigation to events which occurred prior to the receipt date of the complaint referral form as I am precluded from considering any evidence in relation to matters that occurred after the referral of the complaint.
Background:
|
The Complainant has been an employee of the Respondent since 3 March 2003 in the role of Law Clerk/Legal Executive. On 10 June 2014, the Complainant was in a road traffic accident, which resulted in injuries to her neck and shoulder. These injuries cause ongoing chronic pain and, with the exception of a brief attempt to return to work in July 2016, the Complainant has remained on sick leave (and one period of maternity leave). On 31 January 2019, the Complainant contacted the Respondent to inform it that she had been deemed medically fit to work by her doctor on a phased basis as from 26 February 2019 subject to a number of conditions. As of the date of the hearing, the Complainant had not yet returned to work. The Complainant claims that the Respondent has discriminated against her in failing to provide her with reasonable accommodation for a disability. The Respondent rejects the complaint. The Complainant has also submitted two complaints under the Organisation of Working Time Act in relation to the accrual of annual leave whilst on sick leave. |
CA-00028170-001 Employment Equality – Reasonable Accommodation Summary of Complainant’s Case:
|
The Complainant submits as follows: The Respondent is a firm of solicitors. The Complainant has been an employee of the Respondent since 3 March 2003 in the role of Law Clerk/Legal Executive. From 2003 until approximately 2009 her hours of work were 9am to 5pm Monday to Friday, at which point it changed by agreement to 8am to 4pm. In 2013, the Complainant was asked to take on, in addition to her own duties, the post duties of an employee who had taken extended sick leave and was not expected ever to return to work as he would be retiring shortly. It was proposed that the Complainant’s hours of work would be changed to 7.30am to 3.30pm Monday to Friday and the Complainant agreed to this alteration, which, she believed, was on a permanent basis. In general, the Complainant arrived at the Respondent’s offices before 7am, whereupon she sorted and distributed DX post using a lift. The Complainant’s main duties involved attending the non-jury / judicial review list of the High Court on behalf of the Respondent. For this, she prepared a list for Court, as well as any subpoenas and setting down documents to be filed in the High Court Central Office after her attendance in Court. The papers and brief can be quite heavy and large. However, wheeled bags are available for this reason and can be used by any staff as needed. The Courts buildings also contain lifts, which are commonly used by legal personnel for the purpose of transporting wheeled bags and/or trolleys. The nature of how the Courts operate is such that the Complainant has always been able to get up and walk around, as she is not specifically required to sit for long periods, and in fact in the course of her duties she has often stood while in Court as a matter of course. Upon the Complainant’s return to the Respondent’s offices, she would then be responsible for all updates on the Respondent’s system, outcome letters to clients and the return of papers to clients, as well as the allocation of papers for adjourned dates. She also commonly dealt with queries from clients/court offices/solicitors by email and/or telephone. The Complainant assisted colleagues in a number of areas, where required, including regarding preparation of documents and/or reception cover. As from 2013, the Complainant generally left the office to return home at 3.30pm. On 10 June 2014, the Complainant was in a road traffic accident, which resulted in injuries to her neck and shoulder. These injuries cause ongoing chronic pain and, with the exception of a brief attempt to return to work in July 2016, the Complainant has remained on sick leave (and one period of maternity leave). When the Complainant returned in July 2016, she requested a two-day working... |
To continue reading
Request your trial