Legal representatives for Brendan Ogle, a trade union officer, have argued before the Workplace Relations Commission that his duties at Unite the Union were curtailed due to his cancer diagnosis. Mary-Paula Guinness BL stated on Mr Ogle’s behalf that his position had been reduced after he returned to work in Ireland, which she viewed as disability discrimination.
She stated that if Mr Ogle had not been diagnosed with cancer, his role would have remained unchanged. In contrast, Mark Harty SC, representing Unite, countered this argument by suggesting that Mr Ogle had reshaped the evidence to support a discrimination claim. He posited that opportunities were available to Mr Ogle upon his return, but he opted not to pursue them.
Harty urged adjudicator, Elizabeth Spelman, to review the account of an employee who controlled task allocation within Unite, who had ostensibly stopped assigning work to Mr Ogle but insisted this was not directed by others.
Mr Ogle has alleged disability discrimination in compliance with the Employment Equality Act 1998, stating that he was ill-treated and lacking adequate job adjustments following his return to work after throat cancer treatment.
Earlier testimonies in the tribunal heard that Tom Fitzgerald, who was promoted during Mr Ogle’s sick leave, rejected claims that a new directive from general secretary Sharon Graham excluded Mr Ogle from a new initiative in Ireland. Fitzgerald dismissed Ogle’s claim as lacking credibility and coherence.
During the tribunal proceedings on Tuesday, Ms. Guinness argued that her client is trustworthy and has maintained the same account from the beginning; upon his return to his job, a strategic union plan had been implemented that he was not part of.
Accusations of inconsistency had plagued Mr. Ogle during the tribunal, but Ms. Guinness countered that it was, in fact, Mr. Fitzgerald whose narrative was inconsistent, likening it to “changing with the wind.” She further stated that despite Mr. Fitzgerald’s efforts to diminish Mr. Ogle’s role, evidence displayed his substantial involvement in the organisation.
Commenting on credibility, she stated, “The evidence provided by Mr. Ogle is believable, whereas Mr. Fitzgerald’s isn’t.”
Before succumbing to illness, Mr. Ogle held a high-ranking position. However, upon his return to employment, albeit with a disability, he discovered that both his role and responsibility had been scaled back. Ms. Guinness pointed out that Mr. Fitzgerald, despite being at the same level as Mr. Ogle, inherited a selection of responsibilities, including those that were previously Mr. Ogle’s.
Going further, she stated that, had Mr. Ogle not been stricken with cancer, he would have retained his full role within the organisation. His return from illness led to a reduction in his role, which she attributed to discrimination.
In response, Mr. Harty argued that there is no evidence linking the reduction in Mr. Ogle’s role to his illness. He suggested the evidence indicated a restructuring of the Union and upon his return, Mr. Ogle declined to accept the roles offered to him.
Mr. Harty argued that Mr. Ogle’s initial claim was that he was forced out due to the Union’s restructuring. He is now striving to align this evidence with a disability discrimination claim.
Moreover, given the nature of the Union, Mr. Harty highlighted the imperative to uphold its reputation as an honest actor. Evidence suggested that employees who returned to Unite occupation after an illness were treated fairly.
Ms. Spelman announced that she would share her verdict on the issue “when the appropriate time comes.” The case, which started in November 2023, has meandered through several hearings.