The Equality Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS 1998 - 2008
EQUALITY OFFICER’S DECISION DEC-E2009-006
PARTIES
Noel Carney
(Represented by Mr Tony Carney)
AND
Minister for Enterprise Trade & Employment
(Represented by The Chief State Solicitor)
File reference: EE/2006/189
Date of issue: 10 February 2009
1. DISPUTE
1.1 This dispute concerns a claim by Mr Noel Carney that he was discriminated against by the Minister for Enterprise Trade & Employment on the grounds of disability contrary to section 6(2)(g) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2008 in relation to training in terms of sections 8(1)(c) of the Acts.
1.2 The complainant referred his claim to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 22 May 2006 under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 and 2004. On 5 October 2007, in accordance with her powers under section 75 of the Acts, the Director delegated the case to Hugh Lonsdale, 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 which date my investigation commenced. Submissions were received from both sides. In accordance with Section 79(3A) of the Acts and as part of my investigation I proceeded to a hearing on 29 April 2008 to investigate if the respondent was the correct respondent and if the claim had been made in accordance with the time limits set out in section 77 (5) of the Acts. Following this hearing the complainant was requested to submit further information. His final submission was received on 14 November 2008.
2. SUMMARY OF THE COMPLAINANT'S CASE
2.1 The complainant submits that he undertook a FAS motor mechanic apprenticeship from 1998 to 2003. During the apprenticeship he told FAS that he suffered from learning difficulties but they took no measures to recognise his disability.
2.2 The complainant submits that he qualified as a motor mechanic in July 2003 but he was unemployable as a motor mechanic because he did not receive the appropriate supports. He worked as a van driver.
2.3 On 9 January 2006 he obtained employment as a motor mechanic with support of the FAS Disability Support Framework through Dublin South Supported Employment Limited.
3. SUMMARY OF THE RESPONDENT’S CASE
3.1 The respondent submits that they were the wrong respondent. The incidents of alleged discrimination in both the apprenticeship course and Disability Support Framework are provided by FAS who, pursuant to the terms of the Labour Services Act, 1987, is a separate and distinct legal entity.
3.2 The respondent further submits that the incidents referred to are outside of the time limits prescribed by section 77(5) of the Acts.
4. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS OF THE EQUALITY OFFICER
4.1 The complainant alleges discriminatory treatment on the ground of his disability in terms of Section 6(2)(g) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998–2008 and contrary to Section 8 of the Acts in relation to training.
4.2 The complainant cited the Minister for Enterprise Trade and Employment as the respondent but the apprenticeship undertaken by the complainant and the support he sought and received after completing his apprenticeship were both provided by FAS. I accept the respondent’s contention that, in accordance with the Labour Services Act, 1987, FAS is a separate legal entity and therefore all events relating to FAS fall outside my jurisdiction.
4.3 At the hearing the complainant contended that the respondent provided funding for the Disability Support Framework and, as no suitable support was available when he finished his apprenticeship, he suffered discrimination because of a lack of funding by the respondent. However, the Dublin South Support Employment Limited, who provided the support that assisted the complainant in finding employment in January 2006, was established in April 2004. Therefore it appears that the funding provided by the respondent was in place from April 2004 and this is the last date that discrimination could have taken place. The complainant referred his claim of discrimination on 22 May 2006, some two years later, and I find in accordance with section 77 (5) of the Acts that this complaint is out of time.
5. DECISION
I have investigated the above complainant and make the following decisions in accordance with section 79 of the Acts that the claim was not referred to this Tribunal within the time limit prescribed at section 77(5) of the Acts and is therefore not validly before the Tribunal for investigation.
_____________________
Hugh Lonsdale
Equality Officer
10 February 2009