THE EQUALITY TRIBUNAL
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS 1998-2008
Decision DEC - E2010 - 214
PARTIES
Mr Vadims Rebezovs
(represented by Richard Grogan & Associates)
and
A Respondent
File Reference: EE/2008/396
Date of Issue: 4 November 2010
Headnotes: Employment Equality Acts, 1998 & 2004, section 6,8, 14 and 77 - incorrect respondent - no jurisdiction
1. Dispute
1.1. This case concerns a complaint by Mr. Vadims Rebezovs that he was discriminated against by a named respondent on the grounds of race contrary to section 6(2)(h) of the Employment Equality Acts and contrary to section 6(2)(a) of the Employment Equality Acts in relation to conditions of employment and training in terms of section 8(1)(a), and (c) of the Acts, in relation to discriminatory dismissal in terms of Section 8(6)(c), that he was harassed by the respondent in terms of Section 14A, and that he was victimised by it in terms of Section 74.
2. Background
2.1 The complainant referred a complaint under the Employment Equality Acts, (hereinafter referred to as "the Acts") to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 23rd June, 2008 in the terms outlined at 1.1 above.
2.2 Written submissions were received from the complainant. On 3rd September, 2010, in accordance with her powers under section 75 of the Employment Equality Acts, the Director delegated the case to me, Gary O'Doherty, an Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions under Part VII of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 to 2008, on which date my investigation commenced. A hearing of the complaint was held on Wednesday, 15th September, 2010.
3. Matters arising at the hearing
3.1. In the course of my investigation, and prior to the hearing of the matter, an issue arose as to whether the respondent had received the notification by the Tribunal to attend the hearing of the matter as attempts by the Tribunal to contact the respondent at the address provided by the complainant had failed. Having checked the Companies Registration Office on-line on the morning of the hearing, the Tribunal became aware that the named respondent company at the given address had been dissolved since 2005.
3.2. In his submissions to the Tribunal, the complainant submitted that he had started working for the respondent in June 2007. At the beginning of the hearing of the matter, the complainant confirmed that this was, indeed, his evidence. Having had the matter raised to him by the Tribunal, he confirmed that he understood that the company was dissolved since 2005 as outlined in the information available through the Companies Registration Office.
3.3. Consequently, and at said hearing, the Tribunal stated that it appeared that it was impossible for the respondent who was named by the complainant to have been his employer and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction in the matter. In this regard, I note the decision of the Labour Court which found that it is for the complainant to ensure that proceedings are issued against the correct respondent . The complainant was afforded an opportunity, both at the hearing and afterwards in writing, to make submissions in this respect. However, he has not presented any evidence to show that the named respondent is the correct respondent in the matter. Therefore, I am satisfied that proceedings have issued against the incorrect respondent in this case and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter any further.
4. Decision
4.1. I find that the respondent named in the complainant's complaint to the Tribunal could not be the correct respondent in this matter. Therefore, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to investigate the matter any further.
_____________
Gary O'Doherty
Equality Officer
04 November 2010