Ogle appeals WRC ruling on discrimination claim

Trade unionist Brendan Ogle is appealing the Workplace Relations Commission's rejection of his claim that he was discriminated against at work as a cancer survivor by Unite.

Mr Ogle has confirmed that he filed notice of appeal this morning. He called the WRC's decision on his case "not consistent with evidence submitted and is not good law".

"It is important for me and other cancer survivors returning to work that the Labour Court adjudicates on these matters," he said.

Last month, the Workplace Relations Commission rejected claims that another union official, Tom Fitzgerald, told Mr Ogle he had been directed to write him out of the union's strategic plan for Ireland, a plan which he then proceeded to write it up on a whiteboard.

In response to the appeal, Unite today called the tribunal decision "clear and unambiguous" and said the evidence given by its witnesses "held sway on all issues of dispute".

Mr Ogle's account of the meeting had been likened to a scene with a "Bond villain" by one of the union's lawyers - and was rejected as not being "plausible" by an adjudicator as the tribunal dismissed Mr Ogle's complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1998.

Mr Ogle's case was that he was sidelined when he went back to work in the summer of 2022 after being treated for a "very aggressive" throat cancer which saw him lose four and a half stone in weight while "living off fluids for six months".

"The prognosis wasn't good. They throw everything at you until you can’t take any more - until I literally and physically collapsed," he said.

The WRC also heard that Mr Ogle had also issued defamation proceedings against Unite’s former chairman Tony Woodhouse over remarks at union conference in Malahide in September 2022 referring to "lies that were being told" about Unite on social media.

Mr Ogle contended this was a reference to a Facebook post by his wife, Mandy La Combre, referring to his situation at work.

Internal processes failed to resolve the dispute, the tribunal heard.

Adjudicator Elizabeth Spelman accepted that after Ms Graham's election, Unite "changed its emphasis from political matters to industrial matters".

This had a "significant impact" on Mr Ogle, as his duties were "primarily political", she wrote. She said the change was applied across Unite and was "unconnected to [Mr Ogle] or his disability".

"I do not find it plausible that after Mr Fitzgerald and the complainant spent some time discussing deeply personal matters, Mr Fitzgerald would then tell the complainant, a long-time colleague, that he was being excluded [and] that he would then map out this plan on a whiteboard," Ms Spelman wrote.

She also rejected the claim that Mr Fitzgerald had been given Mr Ogle's political duties. The evidence was that other duties Mr Ogle had argued were removed from him were "minor tasks which did not take much time".

An appeal of the case before the Labour Court would be conducted as a de novo hearing, with the entire matter heard afresh.

In a statement today, a Unite spokesperson said: "The WRC decision on Brendan Ogle was clear and unambiguous. It resolved every legal and factual issue arising from the long hearing in favour of Unite."

"The evidence from Unite’s witnesses also held sway on all issues of dispute. Unite will of course review any appeal lodged by Mr Ogle and follow due process in dealing with it. If such an appeal was heard Unite would have a strong expectation that the WRC decision will be upheld," the spokesperson concluded.