FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 83, EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS, 1998 TO 2008 PARTIES : KILDOWNET UTILITIES LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY SHERRY SOLICITORS) - AND - ROMAN MANOLIJS (REPRESENTED BY RICHARD GROGAN & ASSOCIATES) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal under Section 83 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 to 2008
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker appealed the decision of the Equality Officer to the Labour Court on the 3rd March, 2010. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd December, 2010. The following is the Court's determination:
DETERMINATION:
This is an appeal by Romans Manolijs (the Complainant) against the decision of the Equality Tribunal in his claim for redress for acts of discrimination which he allegedly suffered in the course of his employment with Kildownet Utilities Limited (the Respondent). The Complainant, who is of Latvian nationality, contends that he suffered discrimination on grounds of his race. The gist of the complaint is that the Respondent contravened the terms of the Employment Equality Acts 1997-2008 (the Acts) in the following particulars: -
1. In not providing him with a statement of the particulars of his terms and conditions of employment in his native language,
2. In not providing him with a safety statement in his native language,
3. In not providing him with safety training in his native language
The Equality Tribunal found that the Complainant had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and dismissed his complaint. The Complainant appealed to this Court.
Position of the parties
The Respondent informed the Court through its solicitors that it had ceased trading and would not be represented at the hearing.
The Complainant’s case is that he was employed by the Respondent between 15th September, 2004 and 7th September, 2007, when he was dismissed by reason of redundancy. He presented his complaint to the Equality Tribunal on 27th November, 2007.
The Complainant relies on statements made by the Respondent in the course of the hearing before the Equality Tribunal to the effect that statements were provided in English and in Polish but not in Latvian. He also disputes evidence given to the Equality Officer to the effect that safety training was provided with the aid of a translator. The Complainant denies that translation was provided.
Conclusions of the Court
The Court has consistently held that an essential proof in any claim under the Acts is that the Complainant was treated less favourably than another person of a different characteristic (in this case nationality) is, was or would be treated.
This case was presented to the Equality Tribunal on 27th November, 2007. Section 77(5) of the Acts provides that a claim for redress must be presented within six months from the date of occurrence of the discrimination to which the case relates. No evidence whatsoever was adduced to show that any other employee of the Respondent, actual or hypothetical, was or would have been treated more favourably than the Complainant, in respect of the matters complained of, in the six months preceding 27th November, 2007.
In these circumstances the claim cannot succeed.
Determination
The appeal is disallowed and the decision of the Equality Tribunal is affirmed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
20th December, 2010______________________
CONChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.