A speed camera van operator who said his mental health was affected by obesity has lost a discrimination claim over being refused changes to his roster to allow him take up MMA training.
The man told the Workplace Relations Commission he went ahead and started the training programme without waiting for approval – and that it ultimately “saved his life”.
Desmond Murphy took a claim against Road Safety Operations Ireland Unlimited, trading as Go Safe, alleging he was discriminated against on the grounds of disability – specifically mental health and obesity – to the extent that he was forced to resign.
Mr Murphy told the WRC the problem came when he got the opportunity to take up a weight loss programme in January 2020 which required him to attend training from 6.30am to 7.30am, five days a week.
The “Winter Warriors” course was described to the company by Mr Murphy as “a white-collar MMA mixed martial arts charity event” which would run for 20 weeks, an adjudication hearing in February was told.
Mr Murphy gave evidence that his mental health had been affected by a high body weight which he had since managed to cut down “significantly”.
The time of the training required a shift alteration and Mr Murphy said he was asked not to start the course until this was approved. But he said in submission that he knew the decision-making process “could take time” and started the course “hopeful of a prompt and supportive decision”.
He said he was not paid for the four morning shifts he missed – and that he rang the controller on a particular morning to be told there was “no problem with [the] late start”.
Mr Murphy said a letter describing his behaviour as “misconduct” came as a surprise to him and he criticised the approach of the HR manager. He told Go Safe he would not return to work and received notice pay, he said.
Under cross-examination from Ibec employer relations executive Muireann McEnery, Mr Murphy accepted he had no specific diagnosis from his GP.
He said he had a “history of weight problem[s] and mental health” and “denied hiding it” from the company. He said he “did not want to tell them” details of his mental health as he feared he might have been fired.
Ms McEnery, for Go Safe, said the firm denied any discrimination. She said Mr Murphy only put in an application to change his shifts one day before starting the course, without mentioning any “mental or physical health benefits” or that he was seeking reasonable accommodation.
The firm’s management wrote back three days later on January 31st, 2020 saying the company was “unable to commit to [the] requested changes over a long period”, she said.
In response Mr Murphy wrote to the company’s operations manager, stating: “Surely Go Safe can accommodate me by approving the early roster shift starting time to allow me to complete my training so I can compete and raise some much-needed money for [the] Alzheimer’s Society.”
Ms McEnery submitted that the operations manager said he would review the request but told Mr Murphy there was “a slim likelihood of approval” - and requested Mr Murphy not to make arrangements until he got back to him.
Mr Murphy then came with a doctor’s note to seek the shift changes, she said.
On February 14th, Ms McEnery said Go Safe offered Mr Murphy a shift swap arrangement in lieu of the shift change but she submitted that the complainant was “aggressive and argumentative”.
At a HR meeting four days later Mr Murphy spoke about the “negative impact of weight gain on his mental health” and was advised to raise a grievance, Ms McEnery said.
Mr Murphy did not attend the morning shift the next day and told the company he had gone to the course, she said, adding that a period of illness followed.
She said a further meeting with the Mr Murphy and was unsuccessful and the complainant then indicated he would hand in his termination notice – refusing to work the early rostered shift during his notice period.
When Mr Murphy was cross-examined on his evidence by Ms McEnery, he said the MMA course had “saved his life”.
In her decision, published on Thursday, adjudicating officer Patsy Doyle wrote that Mr Murphy accepted he had not put his employer on notice of being troubled by his mental health and weight gain.
She found Mr Murphy had not approached the case with evidence from any medical experts on disability – only a strong personal view that he had a disability which “responded to the components of the MMA course to the point where [he] stated it had changed his life for the good”.
But although the training had “empowered” the complainant, she wrote, the question of taking time off for it “was a beacon of unresolved conflict back at the workplace”.
“I am not certain that the fault for this can be solely attributed to one party, the respondent,” she added.
However, Mr Murphy had “pressed on” with going to training, clashing with his pre-agreed rosters and failed to consider any negotiating position.
“He accepts that he did not share the real reason for his desire for self-improvement and dressed it up as a philanthropic mission,” she wrote.
She said Go Safe was entitled to be informed of a worker’s difficulties on the job – and found the company was not “unsympathetic” to Mr Murphy’s desire to go on the course.
“I accept they tried to make it work but were overtaken by service exigencies,” she wrote.
“A disability is more than feeling diminished, disappointed, or down at work. For me, he has not proved that he possessed a disability which constituted a condition, an illness or a disease which limited his work performance,” Ms Doyle wrote, concluding that Mr Murphy had failed to make out a prima facie case.
She dismissed the complaint, stating that Go Safe had no case to answer.