A JEHOVAH’S WITNESS who worked in a residential centre for people with intellectual disabilities has lost a claim that she suffered discrimination on religious grounds by being asked to accompany residents to Mass.

The Workplace Relations Commission ruled that the HSE had not breached the Employment Equality Act over its treatment of healthcare assistant, Judyta Zielinska, while she was working with Wexford Residential Intellectual Disabilities Services.

Ms Zielinska, who had worked with the HSE since December 2015, told the WRC she had informed management and her colleagues when she started her employment that she was a Jehovah’s Witness.

She pointed out that she told her employer that she did not participate in any religious observances that were not in line with her faith.

Ms Zielinska claimed she had numerous meetings and conversations with management and co-workers over the years about her religious background while she worked in various care facilities.

She told the WRC that it was an express and/or implied term of her contract of employment that she would not have to attend Mass and she had always been reassured that her religious background would be respected.

However, a senior nurse claimed she would raise the issue with management after Ms Zielinska refused to attend a Mass with a resident in April 2023.

Ms Zielinska said she was reassured by her manager, Theresa Duffy, on May 9, 2023 that there was no need for her to attend Mass and she could take care of other duties.

She also complained that she was asked on June 25, 2023 to check the time of an upcoming Mass by another colleague who responded “This is strange. This is news to me” when informed about her religious objection.

Ms Zielinska said the incident left her feeling severe stress and a pain in her chest.

She became further stressed when she was told by Ms Duffy on July 5, 2023 that previous arrangements were irrelevant and that she would most likely have to attend Mass.

The WRC heard she broke down in tears after being informed by another manager the following day that the arrangement no longer existed and that she would have to accompany residents to Mass.

Ms Zielinska said she got no answer when she asked why such a decision was taken.

Counsel for the complainant, Nandika Seth BL, claimed her client suffered discrimination in the workplace when compared to a colleague of the Christian faith by being asked to participate in an activity against her religious beliefs.

However, solicitor for the HSE, Conor White, said Ms Zielinska had not provided sufficient information to meet the standard required to shift the burden of proof about discrimination onto the HSE.

“She has not put forward any act or omission which could reasonably be described as discrimination,” said Mr White

He pointed out that the HSE had not punished her for any conduct and had not excluded her from anything due to her religious beliefs.

Mr White claimed she had not been requested to participate in any religious service but simply to support residents in attending Mass when no other appropriate cover was in place.

The WRC heard the situation changed in 2023 when an extra resident wanted to attend Mass on a regular basis and extra cover was required.

The HSE also contended that there was no exemption agreement in place but it had minimised the requests for the complainant to support residents at Mass wherever possible.

It claimed there was no record of her having communicated about her being a practising Jehovah’s Witness at the start of her employment.

Mr White said the impact of providing Ms Zielinska with a complete exemption from accompanying residents to Mass would be to deny residents the opportunity to practise their religion.

In his ruling, WRC adjudication officer Pat Brady said it was doubtful that asking a healthcare worker to support a service user to attend an event constituted “participation” in it.

Mr Brady ruled that the act of asking a person to do something could not be a breach of the Employment Equality Act.

He claimed it would potentially lead to “extraordinary consequences” if even an inadvertent comment or an instruction given in good faith represented a breach of the legislation.

Mr Brady said the complainant was “at least three steps away form a prima facie case.”

He said the complainant’s response to merely being asked to check Mass times provided some insight into Ms Zielinska’s “excessively sensitive reaction to any reference to a religious service of which she disapproves.”

The WRC noted that she had not attended any religious service so that the alleged breach remained “at the level of a request” and she had not suffered any adverse disciplinary consequences or sanction.

Dismissing the complaint, Mr Byrne said it was regrettable for Ms Zielinska personally that she had suffered stress and chest pain after being asked to carry out the request but that it was insufficient to ground a case of less favourable treatment.