THE EQUALITY TRIBUNAL
EQUAL STATUS ACTS 2000-2008
Decision DEC-S2010-011
PARTIES
Mr. Sean Hynes
and
Cumann Arachais Oifigeach an
Ghnath-Airm (CAOGA)
File Reference: ES/2007/092
Date of Issue: 18th February, 2010
Keywords
Equal Status Acts 2000-2008 - Direct discrimination, Section 3(1)(a) - Marital Status Ground, Section 3(2)(b) - Disposal of Goods and Services, Section 5(1) - Time limits for the referral of a complaint, Section 21 - failure of complainant to attend the oral hearing - no jurisdiction
Delegation under the Equal Status Acts, 2000-2008
This complaint was referred to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 13th August, 2007 under the Equal Status Acts, 2000 to 2004. On 14th October, 2009, in accordance with her powers under Section 75 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 to 2008 and under the Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2008, the Director delegated the complaint to me, Enda Murphy, an Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part III of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 to 2008 on which date my investigation commenced. As required by Section 25(1) and as part of my investigation, I proceeded to hearing on 9th February, 2010.
1. Dispute
1.1 This dispute concerns a claim by the complainant, Mr. Sean Hynes, that he was discriminated against by the respondent, Cumann Arachais Oifigeach an Ghnath-Airm (CAOGA), on the grounds of his marital status in terms of Sections 3(1)(a) and 3(2)(b) of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 to 2008 in not being provided with a service which is generally available to the public contrary to Section 5(1) of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 to 2008.
2. Issue of jurisdiction in relation to time limits
2.1 The complainant claims that he has been subjected to discrimination by the respondent on the basis that his wife, upon the dissolution of their marriage on 10th October, 2006, was no longer entitled to make contributions into the Life Assurance Scheme they held as members of the respondent, CAOGA, and therefore, the complainant claims that he has lost the benefit of her contributions. The complainant alleges that the provision within the rules of the Society by which divorced spouses are no longer entitled to make contributions is discriminatory on the marital status ground.
2.2 Section 21 of the Equal Status Acts makes provision for the time limits to which a complainant is obliged to adhere before a complaint can be deemed admissible. The complainant notified the respondent of the alleged discrimination on 18th April, 2007 and the present case was referred to the Equality Tribunal by the complainant under the Equal Status Acts on 13th August, 2007. The complainant has stated on the Complaint Referral Form (ES.3) that the date of the first discriminatory act was 16th April, 2007 i.e. the date that the respondent confirmed to him in writing that his former spouse's membership of the Life Assurance Scheme had been terminated. However, it would appear from the documentation submitted in support of the complaint that the actual date of discrimination was the date the complainant's divorce became effective i.e. 10th October, 2006. Consequently, it would appear that the present complaint has not been notified to the respondent or referred to the Tribunal within the prescribed time limits as set out within section 21 of the Acts. Therefore, the issue has arisen as to whether or not the relevant time limits for the notification of the respondent and the referral of the complaint should be extended in accordance with the provisions of section 21 of the Equal Status Acts.
3. Oral Hearing regarding the issue of jurisdiction in relation to time limits
3.1 An oral hearing, in accordance with section 25 of the Acts, was scheduled for 10:30 a.m. in the offices of the Tribunal on the 9th February, 2010 in order to deal with the issue of jurisdiction in terms of the prescribed time limits referred to in section 21 of the Acts. A letter informing both parties of the hearing was sent by Registered and Ordinary post on the 23rd October, 2009. The letter notifying the complainant of the hearing was sent to the Equality Authority who were acting as his legal adviser at that juncture. The Tribunal received correspondence from the Equality Authority on 11th November, 2009 advising that it would not be representing the complainant in this matter and that any further correspondence should be sent directly to the complainant. The Equality Authority also confirmed that it had wrote to the complainant notifying him that the hearing in relation to this issue was scheduled to take place on 9th February, 2010. I forwarded a copy of the Equality Authority's letter to the complainant (at the address provided on the Complaint Referral Form (ES.3)) on 23rd November, 2009 and in this correspondence he was also notified of the date of the hearing. The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the complainant by both Registered and Ordinary post on 1st February, 2010 informing him that the hearing of the complaint was scheduled to take place on 9th February, 2010. I am satisfied that the complainant was notified that the hearing of the complaint was scheduled to take place on this date.
3.2 When I proceeded to open the hearing at 10:30 a.m., the complainant was not in attendance and was not otherwise represented. The respondent's representative was in attendance at the hearing. I made contact with the Equality Tribunal Secretariat to check if any communication had been received from the complainant regarding his failure to attend the hearing. No such communication had been received. I reconvened the hearing at 10.50 a.m. and I outlined that, as the complainant failed to attend the hearing in person, that I was bringing the hearing to a close and a decision would issue shortly.
4. Decision
4.1 In accordance with Section 25(4) of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 to 2008, I conclude this investigation and issue the following decision. As part of my investigation under section 25 of the Acts, I am obliged to hold a hearing. I find that the complainant's failure to attend such a hearing was unreasonable in the circumstances and that any obligation under section 25(1) has ceased.
4.2 I find that the complainant has not established that there was reasonable cause for the delay in notifying the respondent or referring the present complaint to the Tribunal. I therefore find that the complainant has failed to comply with the provisions of section 21 of the Equal Status Acts in terms of the statutory time limits for the notification of the respondent of the alleged discrimination and the referral of the complaint to the Director. Accordingly, I find that I do not have jurisdiction to investigate the present complaint.
Enda Murphy
Equality Officer
18th February, 2010