Employee’s discrimination and victimisation claims were rejected after the WRC found no credible evidence to support differential treatment or harassment.

The Complainant alleged he was subjected to discrimination, harassment, and victimisation on grounds of race, mainly by an assistant manager. He claimed unfair treatment in the store’s informal WhatsApp gift collection process, where Irish staff were acknowledged while non-Irish staff were excluded. After raising a concern with the manager in mid-2024, he alleged his Sunday hours were reduced and his workload increased in retaliation. He also described a pattern of delayed bathroom break approvals, being contacted weekly while certified sick, and a humiliating incident during an absence review meeting which he believed was an attempt to undermine the validity of his injury. He acknowledged company policies but claimed his English was limited at the time.

The Respondent confirmed that the Complainant had raised a grievance in 2018, which had been resolved at the time. They explained that Sunday shifts were not guaranteed and that scheduling depended on operational needs and staff qualification, not nationality. Further, denied any discrimination, noting that both Irish and non-Irish staff had received gifts. The store manager from 2024, echoed evidence, highlighting that the Complainant’s concerns about Sunday hours were raised before his complaint regarding the collections. He testified that the Complainant never alleged discrimination until the WRC hearing. He also outlined the absence review process and said the same policies applied to all staff. In closing, the Respondent argued that the Complainant failed to show any differential treatment or establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

The Adjudicating Officer found the Complainant alleged race discrimination in a workplace collection practice, claiming only Irish nationals benefitted. However, evidence showed employees of various nationalities were included. Claims of harassment and victimisation, such as reduced hours and delays in bathroom break approval, were not supported by credible evidence or linked to protected actions. The Adjudicating Officer found the Complainant failed to meet the burden of proof. Both complaints were deemed not well-founded.

Employers should:                

• Maintain Clear, Inclusive Practices: Employers should ensure all workplace customs are inclusive and applied consistently. Document how participants are chosen and maintain records to demonstrate non-discriminatory practices.  
   
  
• Apply Policies Uniformly: All employees must be treated equally regarding absence management, shift scheduling, and task allocation. Implement a well-communicated absence policy and consistently enforce it across staff. When exceptions arise, ensure justifications are documented and communicated clearly.  
   
  
• Document Complaints and Responses: Promptly record and respond to all discrimination or victimisation complaints. Keep timelines and communications to track who raised the complaint, when, and how it was handled.  
   
  
• Train Managers and Team Leaders: Provide regular training on the Employment Equality Acts and internal equality policies. Managers must understand their responsibilities regarding fair treatment, handling complaints, and avoiding comments or actions that could be misinterpreted as harassment or retaliation.

The full case can be found here.