The Equality Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS 1998 - 2008
EQUALITY OFFICER’S DECISION DEC-E2008-058
PARTIES
Mr Ray Stringer
- V -
The South Inner City Community Development Association
File reference: EE/2007/185
Date of issue: 28 October 2008
1. DISPUTE
1.1 This dispute concerns a claim by Mr Ray Stringer that he was discriminated against in relation to promotion/re-grading by The South Inner City Community Development Association on the grounds of age and race in terms of section 6(2) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2008 and contrary to section 8 of those Acts.
1.2 The complainant referred a claim of discrimination to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 4 April 2007 under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 - 2007. On 19 September, 2008, in accordance with her powers under section 75 of the Acts, the Director then delegated the case to the undersigned Conor Stokes - 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 1998-2008 on which date my investigation commenced. Submissions were sought and received from the parties. As required by Section 79(1) and as part of my investigation, I proceeded to hearing on 15 October 2008.
2. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE EQUALITY OFFICER
2.1 The issue of whether or not this matter is properly before the Equality Tribunal on the basis of the time limits set down in Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2008 was raised by the respondent as a preliminary matter in accordance with Section 79(3)(A) of the Acts..
2.2 Section 77(5)(a) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2008 states that “Subject to paragraph (b), a claim for redress in respect of discrimination or victimisation may not be referred under this section after the end of the period of 6 months from the date of occurrence of the discrimination or victimisation to which the case relates or, as the case may be, the date of its most recent occurrence”.
2.3 Section 77(5)(b) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2008 states that “On application by a complainant the Director or Circuit Court, as the case may be, may, for reasonable cause, direct that in relation to the complainant paragraph (a) shall have effect as if for the reference to a period of 6 months there were substituted a reference to such period not exceeding 12 months as is specified in the direction; and, where such a direction is given, this Part shall have effect accordingly.”
2.4 The complainant submitted in the EE1 form outlining the claim for discrimination dated 4 April 2007 that the ‘date of first occurrence of discriminatory act’ was 30 August 2006 and that the ‘date of the most recent occurrence of discriminatory act’ was 27 February 2007. Accordingly, this case was forwarded to an Equality Officer for investigation, hearing and a decision in the normal course.
2.5 The complainant stated that he received notification from the respondent stating that he was not called to interview on 30 August 2006 and that he subsequently submitted a grievance letter as allowed for under his contract.
2.6 The complainant submitted that his letter led to a meeting with the project co-ordinator where the discriminatory acts took place. The complainant’s case is that the meeting took place in September 2006.
2.7 Having made inquiries of the complainant regarding the details of his claim, I am satisfied that no instances of discriminatory acts subsequent to that meeting are being claimed.
2.8 The complainant stated that although he did not submit the EE1 Complaint form to the Tribunal until 4 April 2007, he submitted a copy of the EE2 seeking further information from the respondent in December 2006. I am satisfied that this does not constitute “referring the case to the Director” as permitted in the Act
2.9 No application for an extension of the timeframe under Section 77(5)(b) of the Acts was made to the Director and as such the 6 month time limit set out in Section 77(5)(a) remains in force.
2.9 On the basis of the foregoing I find that the claim before me is out of time.
3. DECISION
3.1 Having considered all the written and oral evidence presented to me, I find that the this claim was not lodged within the timeframe provided by Section 77(5) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2008 and therefore the complainant’s claim must fail.
_________________
Conor Stokes
Equality Officer
28 October 2008