Assignment 01: Employment Law for HRM

Module learning:

Module learning outcomes assessed

L01: Demonstrate an understanding of how employment and
Data protection law influences people management. L02:
Effectively communicate employment law principles both
orally and in writing.

LO4: Analyse employment law problems specific to the
workplace setting and propose solutions by applying the law
to these specific situations.

L06: Demonstrate an ability to assess and discuss the impact
of employment equality law on the Irish workplace.

Assignment Description

This is a case study-based assignment. You are required to identity the material facts and
events, identify relevant statutory provisions and apply them to the factual matrix by
providing comprehensive, reasoned answers to set questions.
Assignment/Project brief

Ms Joan O’Sullivan has been employed as a financial analyst since January 2022 by Elite
Investment Bank Plc, a major UK merchant bank that has an Irish branch situated on
Baggot Street Dublin 2. Her role requires her to work as part of a team of ten analysts
monitoring movements in a range of currencies and projecting fluctuations in their
relative value. Each individual analyst is responsible for a basket of currencies. The team
meets every Monday morning to compare the results of their respective analysis. The
team reports to the Director of Financial Planning in London. All of Joan’s work, other
than the Monday morning meetings, involves working on-line and speaking with various
sources by telephone. She also prepares a weekly report, to a predetermined template,
which is circulated to colleagues by internal email. The computers used by the bank for
this purpose are all encrypted for security reasons, as is the internal email server.

Ms O’Sullivan lives in Dunboyne Co Meath. She normally commutes to Baggot Street every
day. The journey time to and from her place of work can be up to two hours each way. In
May 2024, Ms O’Sullivan suffered a serious head injury when she fell from a ladder while
painting the outside of her house. She was in hospital for four weeks and recuperating at
home for a further eight weeks. She has experienced a number of seizures and continues
to be very sensitive to bright light and environmental noise. She is undergoing
neurological tests to confirm whether or not she has lasting brain damage and whether or
not the fall has caused her to develop a form of epilepsy.

Ms O’Sullivan was paid her full salary, less social welfare payments, until she had
exhausted her entitlements under the Bank’s sick pay scheme (twelve weeks’ sick pay in
a rolling twelve-month period). The Bank wrote to Ms O’Sullivan on 12 September 2024
and asked her to indicate when she would return to work and advised that she would
no longer be paid as and from that date. She was invited to attend a progress meeting in
the Dublin office the following Friday, 16 September.

At that meeting, Ms O’Sullivan informed the Human Resources department that she had
recently met with her consultant to discuss the possibility of returning to work and had
been advised that she could possibly work for up to three hours on four days per week,
but that driving a car was not feasible at present. She had also been advised that, in the
consultant’s opinion, it would take between 12 to 18 months before it would be safe for
her to return to her role in the Dublin office. In the light of that assessment, Ms
O’Sullivan proposed that she be accommodated with part-time work and that she be
permitted to work from home until she was cleared to return to work on a full-time
basis by her doctors.

Her line manager was supportive of this proposal and undertook to speak to the
Director General of the Bank in London, Sir Geoffrey Boothman, about Ms O’Sullivan’s
circumstances. It appears that this approach to senior management in London was met
with a very negative response to the effect that the Bank does not employ part-time
financial analysts, that no such position exists and that there would be significant
security concerns surrounding Ms O’Sullivan working from home.
Ms O’Sullivan was unhappy when her line manager informed her of the negative
response he had received from London. Ms O’Sullivan then wrote directly to Sir
Geoffrey:

Dear Sir Geoffrey,
I understand that you are not prepared to accommodate me while I recover
from the unfortunate accident that I suffered earlier this year. It will take up to a
further 18 months for me to fully recover so as to return to work full-time in
Dublin. My sick pay entitlement is exhausted and I need an income on which to
live. I can perform my job without ever going to Dublin and I can undertake
research, prepare reports and communicate with colleagues by email or
conference calls. While I cannot undertake all of the work that I previously
performed, I am sure that my colleagues, if asked, will be prepared to pick up
the slack until I fully recover. I am, of course, prepared to take a pro-rata
adjustment in my pay during this period.
I do not understand your concerns in relation to the security issues which could
be raised by me working from home. The bank could arrange to provide me with
an encrypted laptop on which to work.
My prognosis is very good and I am merely seeking some reasonable
accommodation for up to 18 months, and hopefully for a shorter period.
I hope that you can reconsider your decision in light of the above.

Sir Geoffrey replied:
Dear Ms O’Sullivan,
I have considered the content of your communication to me. You must
remember that we are a major financial institution, providing a very high-value
service to our clients. You are asking us to create an entirely new job, that we
neither need nor have, for your convenience.
I wish you well for a speedy recovery and you can contact me again when you
are fully fit and we will see if your job is still available.
Ms O’Sullivan contacted her local Citizens Information Service which confirmed that, as
she clearly had a disability, she was entitled to reasonable accommodation from her
employer provided that this did not place a disproportionate burden on the Bank.

A second meeting took place on 20 September 2024 between Ms O’Sullivan and the Irish
management of the Bank to discuss Ms O’Sullivan’s situation and her preference to be
allowed work from home, on a part-time basis, using an encrypted laptop provided by
the Bank, until such time as her condition improved sufficiently to allow her resume fulltime employment in the Dublin office. Ms O’Sullivan expressed her belief again at that
meeting that her co-workers would be more than willing to collectively cover any of the
tasks associated with her role that she would be unable to fulfil while working remotely.
Management agreed to undertake a feasibility study of what was being proposed and
requested two weeks to do that before reverting.

Two weeks later, Ms O’Sullivan received the following letter from Sir Geoffrey
Boothman:
Dear Ms O’Sullivan,

I understand that you have put forward a proposal that we undertake a
feasibility study to establish if the other 9 financial analysts in Dublin could
undertake aspects of your work in order to facilitate you working on a part-time
basis from home. In the light of the report prepared by management in Dublin, I
have formed the view that the Dublin office is over-staffed, something I always
suspected.

The volume of work being undertaken per head of staff in Dublin is considerably
less than that carried out by financial analysts here in London. That is something
that we cannot tolerate if this bank is to remain a strong financial institution.
We have, accordingly, decided to reduce the number of financial analysts in
Dublin from its current level of 10 to eight. As you were the last in, you must be
the first out.

In these circumstances the question of providing you with special treatment
because you are currently unable to fulfil your contract of employment does not
Now arise.

You are hereby being given one month’s notice of dismissal on grounds of
redundancy. I enclose a cheque for €5,672.00 in respect of redundancy pay.
Your date of termination by reason of redundancy will be 4 November 2024.
With best wishes for the future,
Sir Geoffrey Boothman
Director General

Please advise Ms O’Sullivan in relation to the following matters:
1. The complaint(s) Ms O’Sullivan might make against her former employer under
the Employment Equality Act 1998 arising from her employment situation. (20%)

2. What are the time limits that apply to initiating the complaints referred to in
question 1? (10%)

3. Discuss the likelihood of Ms O’Sullivan succeeding should she proceed to bring
the complaints identified above to the Workplace Relations Commission and the
potential forms of redress that may be awarded if she succeeds. (20%)

5. Please give your reasoned opinion as to whether Ms O’Sullivan’s request for
reasonable accommodation is consistent with the view taken by the Supreme Court in
Marie Daly v Nano Nagle School about the extent of an employer’s duty to make such
accommodation. (50%)

Referencing Style:

You must use Harvard Referencing for your assignment. Should you need any support with this,
please consult the resources at the following links:
• On Blackboard (in TLC Student Hub), check out the PACE Modules from Library and
Teaching and Learning Centre – Module 3 explores citations and referencing and will
guide you on how to reference correctly.
Credit where Credit is Due – Institute’s Referencing Guide – available at:
https://libguides.itcarlow.ie/ld.php?content_id=31933427