The Equality Tribunal
Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2008
Decision DEC-E2009-007
PARTIES
Mhamed Kerchouche
(Represented by The Migrant Rights Centre of Ireland)
-V-
Adelaide Steel Limited
(Represented by O’Regan Little Solicitors)
File ref: EE/2006/258
Date of Issue: 27 February 2009
Keywords - Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2008 – Harassment – Discriminatory Dismissal – Race – Prima Facie Case
1. Dispute
1.1 This case concerns a claim by Mr. Mhamed Kerchouche that he was discriminated against by Adelaide Steel Limited on grounds of race and religion in terms of section 6(2)(a) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2007 and contrary to section 8 of those Acts.
2. Background
2.1 This dispute concerns a claim by Mhamed Kerchouche that he was harassed and discriminated against by the respondent in terms of his conditions of employment and dismissal on the basis of his race and religion.
2.2 The complainant referred a claim to the Director of the Equality Tribunal under the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 to 2007. On 12 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 to 2007 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 10 February 2009.
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 10 February 2009 and therefore did not establish a prima facie case.
3.2 Notification of the hearing was posted to the complainant, at the most recent address on record with the Tribunal, well in advance of the hearing. The contact details on file were those of his representatives. On the morning of the hearing, his representatives indicated that they had written out to the complainant and had tried to contact him by phone, to no avail. It is the complainant’s responsibility to keep the Tribunal informed of any change of address. I am satisfied that the Tribunal took such steps as were reasonable to inform the complainant of the details of the hearing.
4. Decision
4.1 I have investigated the above complaint and make the following decision in accordance with section 79(6) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2008. In failing to attend the hearing, the complainant did not establish a prima facie case. Accordingly, I conclude this investigation and find against the complainant.
Conor Stokes
Equality Officer
27 February 2009