In Mary McCarthy v. Boots Retail Ireland Limited (EDA2627) the Labour Court overturned the Workplace Relations Commission’s (“WRC”) decision (ADJ-00044019) that it had no jurisdiction on the basis that the claim was not within the 6-month time limit. The Labour Court held that this case specifically did fall within the 6-month period and decided to refer the case back to the WRC for a full hearing.
Facts:
The Complainant made an application to the WRC against her employer, Boots Retail Ireland Limited, under s.77 of the Employment Equality Act 1998 on the grounds that she had been discriminated against on numerous occasions for her disability (PTSD) which she had been diagnosed with in 2006, prior to starting her employment with the Respondent in 2019. She expressed that the Respondent was fully aware of her disability and failed to make reasonable accommodation for her.
Following a concern over break times raised by the Complainant, a meeting was held on the 16th of June 2022 wherein the Store Manager accused the Complainant of being disrespectful as she apparently walked away and was putting her hands up. The Complainant explained that she does this when she is feeling extremely stressed as at the meeting she was constantly told to “look the Manager in the eye when she was spoken to.” A similar incident transpired on the 19th of June 2022 when the Complainant was left feeling distressed and was crying in the shop stockroom after a contentious confrontation with the Store Manager. The Store Manager again accused the Complainant of being disrespectful and repeatedly asked her, “what are you crying for” and ignored the fact that other staff members were within audible range.
On 22nd June 2022, the Complainant raised a grievance complaint under the Dignity at Work policy with the Area Manager. On the 24th of June 2022, the Complainant was certified unfit to work due to the work-related stress. The Area Manager attempted to resolve the matter through the informal process but during the meeting the Complainant became distressed again. On the 6th July 2022, the Complainant wrote to the Human Resources Operations Manager setting out the events and precarious circumstances that had occurred and the formal process was initiated.
An investigation began, and the Complainant informed the investigator of all the interactions that had transpired since the 16th of June 2022 that left her in a state of unwarranted stress and the fact that her behaviour which was attributable to her mental health disorder was heavily criticised by management. The Respondent stated that the investigation did not identify any evidence that substantiated that the Store Manager personally was aware that the Complainant suffered PTSD. The investigation was not concluded until the 8th September 2022. On 4th August 2022, the Complainant’s Psychiatrist wrote to the Respondent, before the conclusion of the investigation, asking to transfer the Complainant to a different store to improve her mental health. This did not occur and the Complainant resigned on the 16th of August 2022 due to the stress the investigation was causing her and the delay in bringing it to a conclusion. She subsequently appealed the outcome of the investigation. The Complainant lodged her complaint to the WRC on the 17th of January 2023 under the Employment Equality Acts.
The WRC decided that it did not have jurisdiction to decide on the complaint as it was lodged outside the 6-month time limit. Although there were clear references in the Complaint Form narrative to events during the 6-month period, the last date of discrimination on the WRC Form stated 30th June 2022. The Complainant’s representative applied for an extension of time at the WRC hearing on the basis of the Complainant’s poor mental health. The Adjudicator did not grant the extension as the Complainant’s psychiatrist’s evidence did not support the application. It appears from the WRC decision that the Adjudicator heard the full facts of the case before deciding on the preliminary point. The Complainant appealed this decision to the Labour Court.
Decision:
The Labour Court upheld the Complainant’s appeal. The Complainant explained that she had found the application process to the WRC incredibly stressful and confusing and she indeed referenced two dates in her submission of the 3rd August 2022 and 25th October 2022 in her WRC Complaint Form, whereby she attended meetings and experienced discriminatory treatment. These later dates fell within the 6-month period.
The Respondent argued that the Complainant did refer to events occurred on those two dates but did not specify in her submission that she was subjected to discrimination on either of those dates. The Respondent also relied on the fact that at the WRC hearing the Complainant’s representative stipulated that the most recent date she was alleging discrimination was 30th June 2022 which would be outside of the 6-month time.
The Labour Court held that the Complainant was indeed discriminated against within the 6 month period and that the WRC errored by putting ‘undue emphasis’ on the Complainant’s WRC Complaint Form and the correspondence between the Complainant and the WRC in February 2023. However, this is not evident in the WRC decision.
Unusually, the Labour Court decided to refer the case back to the WRC for a full hearing, even though it is clear from the WRC decision that it had heard evidence of both parties. It is not clear why the Labour Court did not decide the substantive case.
The Labour Court’s decision to refer the case back to the WRC is very unusual, especially when it is clear from the WRC decision that evidence on the substantive matter had been heard from both parties and referred to in its decision. This decision is harsh on the Complainant who suffers from mental illness as her case will be dragged out even further and could end up in the Labour Court again. It also will involve further legal costs for all parties.
Takeaway for Employers:
It appears from the WRC decision that the error arose from the Complainant’s representative making an application for an extension of time when it was not necessary and the WRC Adjudicator decided on that application. The Labour Court’s decision to remit the case back to the WRC is concerning and it will be interesting to see if this practice is followed. The concern is that such directions will add to the already significant backlog of hearings in the WRC. It will also result in higher legal costs for parties and may increase awards in cases where compensation is based on monetary loss. Parties and representatives need to be very mindful of timelines as such errors can be very costly as seen in this case.
Links:
WRC Decision
https://workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2024/august/adj-00044019.html
The Labour Court Decision
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2026/july/eda2627.html
Authors- Anne O’Connell and Nadien Allakarami
14 August, 2026
If you found this article useful you might like our employment law newsletter. We write monthly articles, like this, covering interesting cases, decisions, news and developments in Ireland.