The Equality Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS 1998 - 2008
DECISION NO. DEC-E2010-260
PARTIES
Renatas Ramanauskas
(Represented by Richard Grogan & Associates)
AND
Igor Kurakin Transport Limited
File reference: EE/2007/522
Date of issue: 23 December 2010
HEADNOTES: Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2008, Sections 6 and 8 - Race - Conditions of employment
1. DISPUTE
1.1 This dispute concerns a claim by Mr Renatas Ramanauskas that he was discriminated against by Igor Kurakin Transport Limited, on the grounds of race contrary to section 6(2)(h) of the Employment Equality Acts in relation to conditions of employment in terms of sections 8 of the Acts.
1.2 The complainant referred his claim to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 1 October 2007 under the Employment Equality Acts. On 26 May 2010, in accordance with her powers under section 75 of the Acts, the Director delegated the case to me, 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. A submission was received from the complainant. The respondent did not engage with the Tribunal. When a letter of invitation to a hearing was returned to the Tribunal "not called for" I checked the Companies Registration Office records and noted that the respondent had been dissolved on 4 June 2010. In accordance with Section 79(3A) of the Acts and as part of my investigation I proceeded to a hearing on 19 October 2010.
2. JURISDICTION
2.1 Shortly before the hearing the Equality Tribunal obtained legal opinion Senior Counsel in relation to investigations of dissolved companies. The legal opinion concluded:
"I see no basis on which the Tribunal could continue to hear a case against a dissolved company in the absence of an express statutory power to do so. I gave consideration to the possibility that the courts might give a purposive interpretation to the word "person" under section 5 of the Interpretation Act 2005 so as to include a dissolved company, but I feel compelled to reject it. Given the express effect of the State Property Act 1954 and the fact that there are other express statutory provisions which give the dissolved company a legal existence for certain limited purposes, I fell that one is obliged to hold that the Tribunal simply has no jurisdiction in such circumstances."
2.2 At the hearing I gave the complainant's representative a copy of this advice, in accordance with the precedent set in the Polymark case¹, and invited them to make legal submissions within four weeks. The representative replied on 13 December 2010 that, in the circumstances, " it would appear that we have no alternative but to accept the situation that the case cannot proceed".
2.3 I have considered the legal advice obtained by the Equality Tribunal and accept the conclusion that I do not have jurisdiction to carry out an investigation into a complaint against a dissolved company.
3. DECISION
I find that I do not have jurisdiction to carry out an investigation in accordance with section 79 of the Acts as the respondent is a dissolved company.
____________________
Hugh Lonsdale
Equality Officer
23 December 2010
¹ The State (Polymark Ireland Ltd) v The Labour Court and ITGWU, HC 07/11/86