FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 83, EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS, 1998 AND 2004 PARTIES : MINISTER FOR ENTERPRISE, TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT (REPRESENTED BY CHIEF STATE SOLICITORS OFFICE) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal under Section 83 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 to 2007.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker appealed the Decision of the Equality Officer No. DEC-E2009-006 on the 18th February, 2009 in accordance with Section 83 (1) of the Employment Equality Act 1998 to 2007. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 9th June, 2009. The following is the Determination of the Court:-
DETERMINATION:
This is an appeal by a Worker (the Complainant) against the decision of the Equality Tribunal in his complaint of discrimination against the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (the Respondent). The complaint was made under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2007 (the Act).
The Complainant suffers from a learning disability. He trained as a motor mechanic with FAS but had difficulty in obtaining employment due, he claims, to a lack of appropriate supports to enable him to overcome the effects of his disability. The gist of the Complainant's case is that the Respondent failed to provide FAS with the necessary financial resources to provide the service that he required.
It is accepted that the Complainant was provided with the necessary support services in or about April 2004. He made his complaint to the Equality Tribunal on 22nd May 2006. On these facts the Equality Officer, in a preliminary ruling made pursuant to s.79(3A) of the Act, held that the complaint was submitted outside the time limit prescribed by s.77(5) of the Act.
In accordance with s.83(5) of the Act the Court's jurisdiction in this appeal is confined to a consideration of whether or not the Equality Officer was correct in holding that the case was presented outside the statutory time limit. It is clear on the admitted facts that the claim was referred some two years after the occurrence of the events giving rise to the complaint. The Complainant sought to rely on the provisions of s.77(6) of the Act is contending that the delay in presenting the claim was due to misrepresentation by the Respondent. However, it is clear that the alleged act of misrepresentation occurred after the complaint was referred to the Equality Tribunal. Consequently it could not have caused the delay in referring the case to the Tribunal.
In all the circumstances it is clear that the Equality Officer was correct in holding that the case is out of time.
The appeal is disallowed and the decision of the Equality Tribunal is affirmed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
15th June, 2009______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.