Posted by Updated / Monday, 23 Feb 2026 14:09
A 4’10” creche worker who said her employer stopped rostering her because she needed a step to reach the nappy changing table has lost a workplace safety case.
Complaints under the Employment Equality Act 1998 and the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, by Rosaria Wada Fulguera Tenorio against Links Creche Southside Ltd, were rejected in a Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) decision published today.
Ms Fulguera Tenorio, a Bolivian national on a student visa, worked at the Dublin creche group from March to October 2024, when she said she was taken off the roster and told her workplace was “overstaffed”.
In her evidence, Ms Fulguera Tenorio said that because of her height, 147cm, or 4’10”, she was getting back pain due to the height of the furniture in the baby room where she was working, identifying the nappy changing station and the cots in particular.
She said she wanted to find a solution that would let her do the job, and that her previous employers had assisted her by providing “a small step” as an accommodation.
Links Childcare refused the request in April 2024 on the basis it would be a trip hazard, she said. Instead, her employer ordered her to stop changing nappies and have her colleagues do it instead.
Ms Fulguera Tenorio said this led to tension with her co-workers, as they had to do extra work, and she was left feeling “humiliated”.
Her representative, Gareth O’Reilly, said his client was denied a “reasonable workplace accommodation” when she looked for the step, and that this was linked to the later removal of her hours.
It was further submitted that by not rostering Ms Fulguera Tenorio, Links Childcare penalised her for raising a health and safety matter.
She also advanced claims of discrimination on the grounds of race and disability based on the same alleged detriment.
Mr O’Reilly added that his client was not claiming to be disabled because of her height – but rather that she had been discriminated against because her former employer “thought that she had a disability”.
Ms Fulguera Tenorio said she felt unfairly treated, as some of her colleagues were “on the same contract as her and receiving regular hours” at other Links Childcare creches.
She was constrained by the terms of her visa to 20 hours a week during the college term, and it seemed to her that staff with “more availability” were being hired, she said.
Under cross-examination, Ms Fulguera Tenorio said she had limited herself to working at three of the creches run by the childcare firm and accepted that other relief staff were rostered because they were available for work at other locations.
Tiernan Lowey BL, appearing instructed by Martyna Rekosiewicz of ARAG Legal Protection, submitted that Ms Fulguera Tenorio’s contract only undertook to offer work on an “if and when” basis.
There were no guaranteed hours, but the relief workers were “free to accept or decline” the work they were offered.
Discrimination and penalisation were denied by the creche group.
In her decision, adjudicator Monica Brennan decided that Ms Fulguera Tenorio’s situation could not be compared directly to that of full-time staff and rejected the racial discrimination complaint on that basis.
Ms Brennan found the disability discrimination aspect of the case was statute-barred, as the changing table issue arose in April 2024, more than six months prior to the worker filing a complaint in October.
The adjudicator also decided that she was “not satisfied” there was a link between the furniture height complaint and the hours being cut, noting the passage of time between the events.
Ms Brennan dismissed the workplace safety and equality complaints, as well as further claims by Ms Fulguera Tenorio under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 and the Payment of Wages Act 1991.
Who Watches the Watchers? 