The Equality Tribunal
Employment Equality Acts
DECISION - DEC-E2010-179
PARTIES
Karlis Ruja
(Represented by Richard Grogan and Associates, Solicitors)
- V -
Arden Holdings Limited
File reference: EE/2007/486
Date of issue: 20 September 2010
Keywords
Employment Equality Acts 1998-2008 - Discriminatory Treatment - Conditions of employment - - Race - Discriminatory dismissal - Harassment - Prima facie case - incorrect respondent
1. Dispute
1.1. This dispute concerns a claim by Mr. Karlis Ruja (hereafter "the complainant") that he was subjected to discriminatory treatment on the ground of his race in terms of Section 6 (2) (h) of the Act and contrary to Sections 8 and 14A of the Employment Equality Acts by Arden Holding Limited (hereafter "the respondent"). The complainant maintains that the respondent discriminated against him in relation to his conditions of employment. He also maintains that he was harassed contrary to the Acts and discriminatorily dismissed.
1.2. The complainant referred his complaint of discrimination to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 8 October 2007 under the Employment Equality Acts alleging that the respondent alleging that the respondent discriminated against him contrary to the Acts. On 6 September 2010, in accordance with his powers under section 75 of the Acts, the Director delegated this complaint to me, Deirdre Sweeney- 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. As required by Section 79(1) and as part of my investigation, I proceeded to hearing on 8 September 2010.
2. Summary of the Complainant's Submission
2.1 The complainant is a Latvian national and submits that he was employed by the respondent Arden Holdings Limited with an address at 41 Central Chambers, Dame Court, Dublin 2. In his complaint form lodged with the Tribunal on 8 October 2007 he states that the first act of discrimination occurred on 30 March 2007 and the last occurrence on 17 July 2007. He submits that he did not receive a contract of employment, health and safety documentation or training. He further contends that he was not paid in accordance with the Registered Employment Agreement for the Construction Industry, and that he was not joined into the CWPS Pension Scheme. He also alleges that he was discriminatorily dismissed.
3. Summary of the Respondent's Submission
3.1. No submission was received from the respondent.
4. Conclusions of the Equality Officer
4.1. At the hearing I asked the complainant's representative for evidence that the complainant had been in the employment of the named respondent. I outlined to him that I had noted from papers on the file that he had written to the Tribunal on 13 October 2008 stating that it appeared that the respondent company had been 'struck off' and requesting some additional time to seek specialist advice on the matter. Nothing further had been received in relation to this matter. I also outlined to him that on checking the Companies Registration Office on-line register that morning I had found that the named respondent company at the address provided by the complainant (41 Central Chambers, Dame Court, Dublin) had been dissolved on 3 May 1996. I asked for his comments on this. The complainant's representative submitted that while the company may have been dissolved by the Companies Registration Officer this did not mean that it did not continue to operate. The complainant submitted in evidence a payslip. The employer's name on the payslip was the same as the named respondent. However there was no address for the employer on this payslip. The notification of the hearing was sent by the Tribunal by registered letter to the respondent's address provided by the complainant in his referral form. This was the same address for Arden Holdings Limited listed as dissolved on 3 May 1996 in the Companies Registration Office on-line register. The notification was returned as "unknown at this address".
4.2 The issue for me to decide is whether the relationship of employee and employer existed between the complainant and the named respondent. From the evidence available to me I am satisfied that Arden Holdings Limited at 41 Central Chambers, Dame Court, Dublin 2 could not have been the employer of the complainant and is not the correct respondent in this case. 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 . Having considered the matter I am satisfied that proceedings have issued against the wrong respondent.
5. Decision
5.1. As the incorrect respondent is named, I cannot proceed further with this investigation.
_________________
Deirdre Sweeney
Equality Officer
20 September 2010