At first hearing, this case resulted in four decisions in one Decision document in respect of constructive discriminatory dismissal, discrimination in respect of conditions of employment, harassment and failure to provide reasonable accommodation.  At first instance, only the first was upheld and an award of €12,000 was ordered.

The employer appealed the decision in respect of the constructive discriminatory dismissal which had been upheld against it but none of the others.  The complainant did not appeal any.

As a preliminary issue, the Labour Court considered what it was obliged to address on appeal and whether the complainant should be entitled to expand the case to address the other matters decided but not appealed.  The complainant asserted it was a de novo hearing and he was entitled to raise all issues.  The respondent submitted it was appealing one decision and while it accepted that that matter would be addressed de novo it was not appealing the other matters.

The Court considered sections 79 which states that multiple claims shall be investigated as a single case and that “a decision shall be made on each of the claims”.  Section 83 states that a party to a case “may appeal a decision” and the court will issue a decision in respect of “the decision of the adjudication officer to which the appeal relates”.

The court found that only the decision appealed could be considered and that the remaining three decisions of the Equality Officer could not.  The court stated that it was not open to it “to consider decisions that were not appealed to it, within the statutory period, by either side”.

The court went on to consider the substantive issue as appealed to it; constructive discriminatory dismissal.  The complainant had been absent for a period of 7 days in October 2012.  He told the court he had attempted to take his own life twice and when he attempted to return to work his employer requested evidence that he (the complainant) was 100% sane.  This was disputed by the employer.

The complainant provided a certificate that he was fit to resume work.  The court stated that the detail of this engagement was clouded in claim and counterclaim but it preferred the complainant’s version of events.  He struck the court as credible and consistent while the respondent was vague and evasive, took no steps to assist the complainant back to work, placed obstacles in his way and ultimately frustrated his efforts.

The court upheld the claim and raised the amount of compensation (redress) from €12,000 to €16,000, disallowing the appeal.

Why is this case of interest?

This decision indicates how important it is that adjudicators make individual decisions on each equality claim making up a case. Otherwise, the Labour Court may not be able to handle the appeal.