WRC adjudicator finds ‘technical’ discrimination by Westmeath crèche

A Westmeath crèche has been instructed by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) to make a €250 donation to the Mullingar Branch of the Society of St Vincent de Paul, specifying that it is to be used for child welfare in the Mullingar area.

The instruction came after an equal status case was brought by the mother of a child against the crèche, alleging discrimination against her son on the grounds of disability.

The adjudicator ruled that there had been only “technical” discrimination, in that the termination of the arrangement was “abrupt”, with the parents given just three days’ notice.

However, the parents did not succeed in a separate claim concerning the removal of their second child from the crèche, which they alleged was an act of “blatant retaliation, victimisation and indirect discrimination” arising from their protests over the removal of their first child.

In the case of the first child, the WRC heard that he had been accepted into the facility in spring 2024. However, on March 18, 2025, his mother was informed that he would no longer have a place from March 21.

The crèche said this was because the child needed a more specialist, one-to-one service than the facility could provide.

The mother contended that this was “completely discriminatory”, arguing that the manager of the crèche was not a qualified child psychologist and therefore could not make a proper professional assessment of her son.

She also contended that no proper procedures had been followed and that she and her husband were left with effectively four days to make alternative childcare arrangements. The mother argued that there was nothing in her son’s alleged behaviour that should have been outside the competence of a standard crèche.

At the hearing, the manager of the crèche submitted that the child had never settled into the facility. He had begun displaying very concerning patterns of behaviour, a lack of proper interaction with other children and, in general, required a much higher level of support than was normal.

The crèche had assigned a support staff member to work virtually one-to-one with the child. The manager said his needs were beyond the capacity of a normal crèche to facilitate, and the staff member subsequently moved on, alleging stress and “burnout” from the additional constant care expected by the child.

The manager said that, in light of this, the management of the crèche had to review the entire situation. They concluded that they were not a specialist facility for children with additional needs and that the child’s needs were beyond the capacity of a normal crèche to facilitate.

They felt it was in his best interests that he be moved to a facility that could properly cater to his needs.

The adjudicator found that, for discrimination under the Equal Status Act 2000 to be accepted, the person in question had to be “Disabled”. While there was no medical evidence presented, he accepted the view from the sworn evidence that the child had needs above the norm.

He also pointed out that where a person has a disability that, in the circumstances, could cause harm to the person or to others, treating that person differently to the extent reasonably necessary to prevent such harm does not constitute discrimination.

He noted that the crèche did not have the resources to facilitate the child in a manner that would be productive for him while, at the same time, catering to the proper needs of all the other children there.

In discussions, it was clear that financial issues, including the cost of a one-to-one staff member, were a factor, as was the physical set-up of the facility. It had never been envisaged that a child with additional needs would be enrolled.

The adjudicator also noted the “very heartfelt oral evidence” of the parents that, while the boy may have been somewhat challenging on occasions, they did not feel his behaviour was to the extent that required his removal.

He said the removal request, at less than a week’s notice, was a complete shock to them and that, in subsequent discussions with the manager, they felt their views had been ignored.

The adjudicator stated that the short notice was hard to justify, although the child was quite obviously having difficulties and displaying some alarming symptoms.

His view was that the crèche should have moved much sooner to have a detailed interaction with the parents, supported by an assessment of the child by a professional child psychologist.

“Following this and supported by expert medical evidence decisions on his future in the crèche could have been made, hopefully collectively with the parents having a full input,” he wrote.

He said his view had to be that “the very abrupt ending” of the child’s time at the crèche was discriminatory on largely technical grounds. However, any question of redress for discrimination would have to be tempered by the fact that considerable efforts were made to accommodate the child for a considerable period of time.

He also found no basis for a victimisation complaint and said it had to be emphasised that the child received excellent care and that there was no ill will or malign attitude by the respondent manager or staff towards the child or parents at any time.

As well as instructing that a donation be made to the Society of St Vincent de Paul, he said the crèche should review its overall policy position regarding the appropriate and timely organisational response to children who come into its care but subsequently display significant behavioural issues that impact on the safe daily operation of the facility and the safety and wellbeing of other children.

Second child

In the case of the second child, the parents said he had been happy in the crèche and had never been the subject of any adverse comments.

They said his removal was completely unjustified and had no basis in any sense of fair play or natural justice. They felt he was clearly being indirectly discriminated against by association with his sibling.

The crèche manager stated that, following the ending of the first child’s time at the crèche, the parents had engaged in a campaign of very negative commentary locally regarding the crèche and its staff.

She said there had been a complete breakdown in the relationship between the parties and that she felt continuing to accept the second child was not in the best interests of either party.

The adjudicator was clear that the business relationship between the parties, as adults and service providers, was irrevocably over.

He said that, unfortunately, the second child could not remain at the crèche and that, given the “toxic atmosphere”, for him to have done so would have been in no one’s best interests.