The Equality Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS
DECISION NO. DEC-E2015-069
PARTIES
Jessica Hayes
(Represented by Citizen’s Information)
AND
MBCC Foods Ireland Limited
(Represented by Peninsula Business Services (Ireland) Ltd)
File reference: EE/2013/303
Date of issue: 21 August 2015
1. DISPUTE
1.1 This dispute concerns a claim by Jessica Hayes (hereinafter the “Complainant”) who states that she was discriminated against by MBCC Foods IRL Ltd (hereinafter the “Respondent”) on the grounds of discrimination and victimisation contrary to section 6 (2) (a) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2011 (hereinafter the “Acts”)
1.2 The complainant referred her claim to the Director of the Equality Tribunal for the discrimination claim on the 25th July 2013 and victimisation claim on the 30th June 2013 under the Acts.
1.3 The Complainant claims that she was told by another staff member that the manager Robert had requested that the other staff members did not speak to her. The same staff member informed the Complainant that the manager asked the other staff members to have all her duties as cleaning and not to serve the customers. Her specific claim is in relation to race.
1.4 On the 14th July 2015, in accordance with his powers under section 75 of the Acts, the Director delegated the case to me, Caroline McEnery, 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. Submissions were received from both sides. In accordance with Section 79 (1) of the Acts and as part of my investigation I informed both parties by letter sent registered post on the 3rd June 2015 that I had scheduled a hearing for 21st July 2015. On the 21st July 2015 the complainant did not turn up to the hearing.
2. DISCRIMINATION
2.1 In the Complainant’s letter of the 25th July 2013 she clarified then that the complaint is discrimination under the race ground.
3. BURDEN OF PROOF
3.1 The employee must discharge their burden of proof which applies to the claim of discrimination.
3.2 Section 85 (A) sets out the burden of proof which applies i.e. that where the facts are established by or on behalf of a complainant from which discrimination may be inferred it shall be for the Respondent to prove the absence of discrimination.
3.3 Therefore the Complainant must prove the primary facts in which she relies to raise a presumption of discrimination based on credible evidence. Once the Complainant proves this the burden of proof passes to the Respondent. In this case the Complainant did not attend the hearing as scheduled and therefore failed to prove this prima facia case.
4. DECISION
4.1 In accordance with Section 79(6) of the Acts I issue the following decision. As part of my investigation under Section 79 of the Acts, I am obliged to hold a hearing. The Complainant was notified of the arrangements for the hearing in writing, by recorded delivery on the 3rd June 2015. The Complainant’s representative attended and confirmed he had spoken to her father to confirm her attendance and he could not explain her non-attendance at the hearing.
4.2I 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 allegations of discrimination and victimisation. I conclude the investigation and find against the Complainant.
____________________
Caroline McEnery
Equality Officer
21 August 2015