Mark Savage
versus
Securitas Security Services (Ireland) Ltd.
1. Dispute
1.1 This case concerns a claim by Mr. Mark Savage that he was discriminated against by Securitas Security Services (Ireland) Limited on grounds of gender in terms of section 6(2)(a) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 and 2004 and contrary to section 8 of those Acts, when the company failed to shortlist him for interview for the position of security guard in June 2006.
2. Background
2.1 The complainant referred a complaint under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 and 2004 to the Equality Tribunal on 15 September 2006 alleging that the respondent had discriminated against him on grounds of gender when it failed to shortlist him for interview for the position of security guard in June 2006. In accordance with her powers under the Acts, the Director delegated the case to Ms. Orlaith Mannion, Equality Officer for investigation and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions under Part VII of the Acts. Written submissions were received from both parties. The Equality Officer wrote to both parties on 15 February 2008 informing them that a hearing of the complaint would take place at the Tribunal's offices on 26 March 2008 commencing at 10:30a.m. The letter to the complainant was sent to the most recent address which the Tribunal had on file for him. On Friday 21 March the Equality Officer left a message on Mr. Savage’s voicemail reminding him that the joint hearing would take place on the following Wednesday.
2.2 The respondent arrived in time for the hearing. The complainant failed to appear at the scheduled time and the Equality Officer indicated that she would defer commencement of the hearing for 30 minutes in case the complainant had been inadvertently delayed. The complainant was telephoned to enquire whether he was en route. The call went to voicemail. When the complainant had not appeared by 11:10 a.m. the Equality Officer convened the hearing as she was satisfied that the complainant had been made fully aware of the date and time of the hearing and no explanation had been communicated to the Tribunal as to why he was unable to attend.
3. Conclusions of the Equality Officer
3.1 In cases such as this responsibility rests with the complainant in the first instance to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. The complainant did not attend the hearing on 26 March 2008 and no explanation of his failure to do so was given to the Equality Tribunal. Section 25 of the Interpretation Act 2005 defines ‘service by post’ as follows:
“Where an enactment authorises or requires a document to be served by post, by using the word “serve”, “give”, “deliver”, “send” or any other word or expression, the service of the document may be effected by properly addressing, prepaying (where required) and posting a letter containing the document, and in that case the service of the document is deemed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.”
3.2 The Employment Equality Acts do not specifically require the ‘service by post’ of notification of a hearing. However, it would be impractical to hold such a hearing without informing the parties involved. Therefore, some form of notification is necessary. Notification of the hearing was posted to the complainant at the most recent address on record in the Tribunal. He was also telephoned twice. It follows that I am satisfied he was aware of the hearing arrangements. No explanation has been given by the complainant for his non-attendance. Consequently, I find that a prima facie case of discrimination has not been established by Mr. Savage and his complaint must fail.
_______________
Orlaith Mannion
Equality Officer
15 May 2008