Martyn Reynolds

TLI Group Limited

Employer not required to create a role to comply with reasonable accommodation obligations.

The Complainant began working for the Respondent as a Cable Jointer in August 2022 and was promoted in August 2023. He supervised substation upgrade works but did not carry out heavy or strenuous work in that role. In February 2024, he was diagnosed with acute pericarditis and advised by his cardiologist to rest. He took two weeks’ sick leave in April 2024 and returned in May, only to find he had been reassigned to a physically demanding “New Connections” role without consultation. Despite medical advice from his GP, cardiologist, and Occupational Health to avoid strenuous activity, the Respondent failed to accommodate him and instead suspended him before placing him on sick leave.

The Complainant raised a grievance and proposed several ways to return to his previous duties, but these were rejected. He claimed he was never consulted about role changes, never given a proper job description, and that reasonable accommodation was refused. He also alleged that Occupational Health received inaccurate role information, leading to flawed assessments. After feeling unsupported and pushed out of his role, he resigned in July 2024. He argued that the Respondent failed to meet its obligations under s.16 of the Employment Equality Act by not offering reasonable accommodations for his disability.

The Respondent agreed that the Complainant began employment as a Cable Jointer in August 2022 and later received PICW (Person in Charge of Works) approval; however, a qualification requiring both supervisory and physical duties. The Respondent stated the Complainant was aware that the PICW role involved strenuous tasks, as confirmed in ESB’s safety rules and company practice. They contended that until late May 2024, no medical restrictions or formal requests for accommodation were communicated. Following medical advice in late May 2024 indicating the Complainant should avoid strenuous work, the Respondent referred him to Occupational Health and undertook a review of 24 roles across the company. Two suitable non-strenuous roles were identified. The Complainant declined one due to lower pay and was advised to apply for the other. The Respondent asserted that it acted reasonably, complied with all statutory obligations under the Employment Equality Acts, and made genuine efforts to identify alternatives. It rejected the claim that the Complainant was discriminated against, stating no grievance on reasonable accommodation was submitted, and argued the resignation was voluntary and not the result of unlawful treatment.

The Adjudicator found that the Complainant had a disability within the meaning of the Employment Equality Acts but failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. While the Complainant claimed his employer did not provide reasonable accommodation, the WRC found the Respondent acted promptly upon notification, referred him to Occupational Health, assessed his role and alternatives, and identified two suitable roles. The WRC concluded the Complainant sought a fundamentally different job that the employer was not obliged to create. As such, no less favourable treatment or breach of duty occurred, and the complaint was deemed not well-founded.

Employers should ensure that employees are aware of their obligation to disclose relevant medical information, particularly where health issues may impact safety-critical roles. Upon receiving notification of a disability, employers must act promptly (including referring the employee to Occupational Health, assessing their current role, and identifying potential reasonable accommodations). However, employers are not required to create entirely new roles or remove essential duties. Any accommodation must be proportionate, practical, and consistent with business needs. Transparent consultation and genuine efforts to explore feasible accommodations are key. Maintaining accurate role descriptions and involving employees in discussions can also help avoid misunderstandings and support compliance per the Employment Equality Acts.

The full case can be found here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2025/march/adj-00053220.html