Lyudmila Ivashina
-v-
Mascall Ltd t/a Prestbury Security Group
1. Claim
1.1. The case concerns a claim by Ms Lyudmila Ivashina, a national of Kyrgyzstan, that Mascall Ltd, trading as Prestbury Security Group, discriminated against her on the ground of race contrary to Section 6(2)(h) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2004. She alleges that she was discriminated against with regard to access to employment contrary to S. 8(1)(a), conditions of employment, contrary to S. 8(1)(b) and discriminatory dismissal contrary to S. 8(6)(c) of the Acts.
2. Background
2.1. The complainant submitted that between 12 August 2003 and 17 May 2004, the respondent did not proceed to apply for her work permit with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment as promised to her in interview in August 2003 and that this constitutes discriminatory treatment in relation to access to employment; that because of the unresolved work permit issue she felt forced to accept working conditions inferior to those of Irish staff; and that being taken off the company's roster after the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment refused her work permit in July 2004 amounted to discriminatory dismissal.
2.2. The respondent submitted that the complaint was filed out of time and that therefore, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to investigate.
2.3. The complainant referred a complaint under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2004 to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 29 July 2005. On 11 December 2006, in accordance with her powers under S. 75 of the Acts, the Director delegated the case to Anne-Marie Lynch, an Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part VII of the Acts. A submission was requested from the complainant; however, the complainant elected to rely on the original complaint form in lieu of a formal submission. A submission from the respondent, which included copies of the complainant's P45 and P60 forms, was received on 28 April 2006.
2.4. Following Ms Lynch's transfer from the Tribunal, the case was subsequently assigned under S. 75 of the Acts to Stephen Bonnlander, an Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part VII of the Acts, on 14 September 2007. A joint hearing of the case was scheduled to be held on 20 November 2007. I wrote to both parties on 20 September 2007, advising them of the date. On 10 October 2007, the letter to the complainant's solicitor was returned to the Tribunal, marked "gone away". On 12 October 2007, I wrote to the complainant by registered and regular post to advise her of this, to request an update on the issue of her legal representation and also to advise her of the hearing date. No telephone number, fax number, or email address for the complainant was on file to enable me to contact her in any other way than by post. Neither letter was returned to the Tribunal. Likewise, the letter to the respondent, advising them of the hearing date, was not returned as undeliverable.
2.5. On the morning of the hearing, 20 November 2007, neither party appeared before the Tribunal. Neither party contacted the Tribunal to explain their absence.
3. Decision of the Equality Officer
3.1. In the light of the foregoing, I find that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case that the respondent discriminated against her on ground of race pursuant to S. 85A of the Acts, and that therefore her complaint fails.
_______________________
Stephen Bonnlander
Equality Officer
26 November 2007