The Equality Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS 1998 - 2008
DECISION NO. DEC-E2010-104
PARTIES
Michael Sweeney
(Represented by Marguerite Bolger SC, instructed by
BCM Hanby Wallace Solicitors)
AND
Department of Education and Science
(Represented by David Keane S.C., instructed by
the Chief State Solicitor's Office)
File reference: EE/2007/596
Date of issue: 18 June 2010
Keywords - Employment Equality Acts - Discriminatory Treatment - Discriminatory Dismissal - Victimisatory Dismissal - Race - Prima Facie case.
1. DISPUTE
1.1 This dispute concerns a claim by Mr Eduards Poplavskis that he was subjected to discriminatory treatment, discriminator dismissal and victimisatory dismissal by Karl Smyth on the grounds of race in terms of Section 6(2) and 74 of the Employment Equality Acts, and contrary to Section 8 of those Acts.
1.2 The complainant referred claims of discrimination to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 28 January 2008 and 10 March 2008 under the Employment Equality Acts. On 6 May, 2010, in accordance with her powers under section 75 of the Acts, the Director then delegated the case to 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 2008 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 18 June 2010.
2. CONCLUSIONS OF THE EQUALITY OFFICER
2.1 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 18 June and therefore did not establish a prima facie case.
2.2 Notification of the hearing was posted to the complainant's representative well in advance of the hearing. The Equality Officer is in possession of confirmation that both the solicitor's firm and the individual named solicitor on record at that stage received the hearing notification in good time. It is the complainant's responsibility to keep the Tribunal informed of any change of representative. In the circumstances I am satisfied that the Tribunal took such steps as were reasonable to inform the complainant of the details of the hearing. On the evening before the hearing was due to commence, the Tribunal was contacted by the putative new representatives of the complainant to indicate that although they had received the file, they had contacted the complainant who indicated to them that he would, in all likelihood, not be attending the hearing. Accordingly they would not be in a position to come on record for the complainant. It was further indicated to the Tribunal that the complainant was advised of the likely outcome of a failure to attend the hearing.
3. DECISION
3.1 In accordance with Section 79(6) of the Employment Equality Acts, I issue the following decision. As part of my investigation under Section 79 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 79 has ceased. As no evidence was given at the hearing in support of the allegation of discrimination I conclude the investigation and find against the complainant.
Conor Stokes
Equality Officer
21 June 2010