THE EQUALITY TRIBUNAL
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS 1998-2011
Decision DEC – E2015 – 013
PARTIES
Mr Rimantas and Mr Sarunas Juodris (represented by Richard Grogan and Associates, Solicitors)
and
Ruskim Seafoods Ltd. (represented by Pensinsula Business Services)
File Reference: EE/2013/195
EE/2013/196
Date of Issue: 25th March, 2015
1. Claim
1.1. The case concerns claims by Mr Rimantas Juodris and Mr Sarunas Juodris that Ruskim Seafood Ltd discriminated against them on the ground of race contrary to Section 6(2)(h) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2011, in terms of not paying them for work on public holidays, but paying other workers.
1.2. The complainants, through their legal representative, referred a complaint each under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2011 to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 22 April 2013. A submission in respect of both complaints was received from their representative on 19 June 2013. A submission was received from the respondent on 13 March 2015. On 12 February 2015, in accordance with his powers under S. 75 of the Acts, the Director delegated the case to me, Stephen Bonnlander, 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 this date my investigation commenced. As required by Section 79(1) of the Acts and as part of my investigation, I proceeded to hold a joint hearing of the case on 20 March 2015. Neither the complainants nor their representative was in attendance. The respondent’s representative was in attendance. I adjourned the hearing for 15 minutes to allow for unforeseen circumstances and to examine whether either the complainants’ representative or the complainants themselves had contacted the Tribunal to explain their absence. This was not the case, and neither did the complainants’ representative contact the Tribunal in this matter in the following days.
2. Decision
2.1. In the lightof the foregoing, and in accordance with Section 79(6) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2011, I issue the following decision. As part of my investigation under Section 79 of the Act, I am obliged to hold a hearing. I find that the failure of the complainants 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 complainants.
______________________
Stephen Bonnlander
Equality Officer
25 March 2015