Case Number: ADJ-00010072. Workplace Relations Commission

• Docket Number: ADJ-00010072
• Hearing Date: 27 April 2018
• Date: 24 October 2018
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Parties: A Production Operator Vs. A Manufacturing Company
• Respondent: A Manufacturing Company

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00010072 Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A Production Operator	A Manufacturing Company

Representatives Dan Walshe B.L. instructed by Sean Ormonde & Co. Solicitors IBEC

Complaint:

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-00013160-001	17/08/2017

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 27/04/2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: James Kelly

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint. The last correspondence received in relation to this case was on 16 May 2018.

Background:

The complainant claims that she suffers from anxiety and panic attacks, she was assigned to an area in the respondent’s factory which exacerbated and triggered her symptoms and sought to move but she was not provided with the appropriate reasonable accommodation. The respondent claims that it cannot be expected to make accommodations in respect of a condition whose full nature and implications were not disclosed by the complainant. The respondent said the complainant wanted to determine where she was to work. The respondent said that area she was assigned to work in is not a confined space.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The following is a brief summary of the respondent’s case. The complainant claims that following an aptitude test, interview process and medical examination she commenced a 6-month fixed-term contract as a general operative with the respondent on 13 February 2017. The complainant claims that she disclosed her medical conditions on her application form and indicated the medication that she was taking, including “takes anti-depressants daily (Venex XL)”. The complainant said that nowhere on the pro forma list of conditions on the medical form did it list the conditions “anxiety or panic attacks”. The company medical examination resulted in her been deemed “medically qualified to perform the essential functions of the job without restriction”. The complainant underwent training for a 10 to 12-week period and in that time, she only missed one day through illness for suspected Scarlett fever. The complainant said that she raised a complaint over a named team leader and she claims that she was confronted about this complaint on a night out with her peers. She said she was subsequently moved to work on another line so as not to have to work with him. She feels that as a consequence of raising her complaint she was selected to work in Area 1 within the respondent’s Plant, all of the other nine trainees were sent to work in Area 6, although she was told she would be working in Area 6 on the completion of her training. The complainant claims that Area 6 is a very large area with wide spaces and “lots of air”, she claims that Area 1 is by contrast small, approximately one-quarter its size and contains “massive piles of pallets”. The complainant claims that on her first day working in Area 1 she felt she “could not breath”, she felt there was “barley space to move” and she informed the Day manager that she suffers from anxiety and panic attacks. She said she met with her trainer and told her that she could not continue to work in that area. She claims that she went to the nurse in a very distressed state and said she showed the company nurse that she carried antihistamines in case of anxiety and panic attacks. She said that the nurse was very sympathetic and said she would inform the Daytime shift manager and she would be looked after. She claims that when she went to work the following day she was moved back to Area 6. The complainant said that she met with Mr. A, who was head of the weekend shift, where she informed him of her anxiety and panic attacks, where she claims was brought on from working in Area 1. She pointed out that all the other trainees were sent to Area 6 and she was the only one assigned to Area 1. She said that Mr. A emphasised that all employees had to be flexible and that she could remain in Area 6 in the short term but she would be moving back to Area 1. The complainant claims that she worked the rest of the weekend in Area 6 without difficulties. The complainant claims that the following weekend – 13 May - when she arrived at work she was met with Mr. A and another member of staff who again said that she would have to begin working in Area 1. She said she got upset, left the building and attended her doctor where she was declared unfit for work for the 2 days 13-14 May 2017 due to anxiety. The complainant claims that she had a meeting on 18 May 2017 with Mr. A, Ms. B from HR, and her Union Representative, where they discussed her situation. The complainant said she again highlighted that she has anxiety and panic attacks and that she could not work in Area 1. Other options were looked at including a different part within Area 1 but the complainant said that she informed the respondent that she could not work in Area 1 and she was asked what she was going to do to “change herself”. The complainant claims that she received a text message the following day, 19 May 2017, from Mr. A to say that she was to report into work in Area 1 that night when she came on shift. The complainant claims that she made contact with Ms. B by email that evening and set out that she would not be working in Area 1 as outlined due to the “extreme reaction I experience when in confined spaces”. She offered medical certification should it be needed confirming same. She also set out in this email that she wanted confirmation from the respondent that she would not be expected to work in Area 1. The complainant claims that she got a reply from Ms. B on 22 May 2017 stating that the company cannot confirm that she will not be required to work in Area 1, or areas, other than Area 6. That the nature of the business requires flexibility hence its inter-changeability clause in the company /union agreement. The complainant claims that she sent a letter to the respondent on 25 May 2017 where she said “… been left with no option only to give you my formal resignation as of today 25-05-2017. This has not been an easy decision for me and I did try to reach a compromise with you, however as per your recent email you have not prepared to...