A GP's receptionist who is due €40,000 after claiming she got no response when the family surgery where she had spent nearly 50 years working was closed down has been awarded a further €12,000 after a tribunal heard she had been "replaced by two younger employees" while on medical leave.
The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) made the award on foot of a complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1998 by the worker, Margaret Dunne, against Dr Declan Scanlon, who had a medical practice in Tullamore, Co Offaly.
It is the second ruling of the tribunal in favour of Ms Dunne following a determination that she was due a redundancy payment, worth up to €40,000, upon the closure of Dr Scanlon's surgery in October 2022.
Ms Dunne told the employment tribunal that she originally started work at Dr Scanlon's surgery in March 1973, when it was run by his late father. She worked there "continuously" until the Covid-19 pandemic in March 2020, when she stayed home on foot of medical advice.
Her evidence was that during this absence, she was "replaced by two younger employees" and gave their names.
The WRC noted Ms Dunne's evidence that the two younger receptionists were in their 40s, while the complainant was 65 at the time.
Ms Dunne told her employer in May 2021 that she was in a position to return to work.
Dr Scanlon told her he wanted her to have a "check-up" first, Ms Dunne said. She then got a call from a secretary to a hospital consultant asking her to come the next day, she said.
However, after pointing out that this was short notice, she did not attend, she told the tribunal.
After asking again about going back to work the following month, Dr Scanlon asked for her permission to refer her to occupational health, to which Ms Dunne consented, the tribunal was told.
This was the last she heard from Dr Scanlon, the WRC heard.
Representatives of the South Leinster Citizens' Information Service, who appeared for Ms Dunne in the case wrote to Dr Scanlon in October 2021 asking about a return to work to no avail, the tribunal was told.
Dr Scanlon entered no appearance at a hearing in April this year and the case went ahead in his absence.
There had been "various attempts" made by WRC staff to contact Dr Scanlon and a member of his family had been told about the hearing, which meant he had the "opportunity to attend", the adjudicator Marguerite Buckley wrote.
She wrote that she had been made aware that the closure of the surgery was because of "ill-health" on the part of Dr Scanlon.
"When the complainant was able to return to the workplace, the respondent effectively ignored her following a minor initial engagement," Ms Buckley wrote.
She added that there "may have been a legitimate objective" in the move to have Ms Dunne medically assessed prior to going back to work but the lack of communication with her was "unexplained", apart from what inference the adjudicator could make on hearing of the respondent's "subsequent ill health and ultimate closing of the medical practice".
"The fact remains that the prima facia findings have not been rebutted by the respondent and on the uncontroverted evidence of the complainant I find that she has been discriminated on the grounds of her age," Ms Buckley wrote.
She awarded Ms Dunne €12,000, a sum equivalent to six months' gross salary.
The compensation has been awarded to Ms Dunne in addition to a previous WRC determination, published earlier this month, that she was entitled to a redundancy payment reflecting nearly 50 years' service to Dr Scanlon and his father upon termination - a sum of about €40,000, based on the statutory formula.
Ms Dunne had said she learned from a colleague that Dr Scanlon intended to close the practice in October 2022 - but heard nothing directly from the doctor about terminating her employment or paying her redundancy, the complainant told the tribunal.
When the clinic closed, she applied to Dr Scanlon for a redundancy payment and again got "no response" and no redundancy certificate, it was submitted.
The adjudicator, Ms Buckley, said the exact calculation of the lump sum was a matter for the Department of Social Protection, and it is subject to confirmation of the worker's PRSI contributions for the relevant period.
