THE EQUALITY TRIBUNAL
An Binse Comhionannais
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS
DECISION NO. DEC-E2015-087
PARTIES
Derek Rothwell
AND
Dublin Bus
File reference: EE/2013/438
Date of issue: 18 September 2015
HEADNOTES: Employment Equality Acts Sections 6 and 8 – Gender, marital status, Family Status, Religion, Age - Discrimination
1 DISPUTE
1.1 This dispute concerns a claim by Mr Derek Rothwell that he was discriminated against by the company on the grounds of Gender, marital status, Family Status, Religion and Age.
1.2 The complainant referred his claim to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 28 June 2103 under the Employment Equality Acts. On 9th June 2015, and in accordance with his powers under section 75 of the Acts, the Director delegated the case to me, Pat Brady, 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 and in accordance with Section 79(1) of the Acts and as part of my investigation I proceeded to a hearing on June 18th 2015.
2 COMPLAINANTS' SUBMISSION
2.1 The complainant has been embroiled in a series of long running disputes with the company and he is currently on long-term sick leave. Various aspects of the disputes between the parties have been the subject of hearings at the Rights Commissioner, the Labour Court and the Equality Tribunal.
2.2 The complainant did not provide any detailed information prior to the hearing in respect of his claim made under the Employment Equality Acts.
2.3 In a submission of September 9th 2014 he outlined a large range of complaints about his treatment at the hand of the company but no dates, information on comparators, or additional evidence was offered in respect of how his treatment was less favourable on any of the grounds claimed.
2.4 In the course of the investigation he failed to specify or provide additional detail on the claims which were very generalised.
3 RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSION
3.1 The respondent stated that it could not respond to the claimant’s case because it did not have any such detail regarding dated episodes of discrimination or comparators. It continued that previous complaints had been dismissed by the Rights Commissioner on two occasions, by the Equality Tribunal and the EAT. In addition he has had two appeals disallowed by the Labour Court.
4 Preliminary Matter
4.1 While the claimant was on notice of the hearing he was unrepresented and sought to present his general grievances against the company. The specific requirements and proofs required for an Equality case were explained and it was indicated that if he wished to make a case for an adjournment in order to enable to meet the requirement of the Act that this would be considered, but that a high burden of proof would fall on him given that he had not availed of the opportunity of the hearing to make his case.
4.2 The Company strongly objected to any deferral of a decision on the basis that the matters in dispute were well known in advance of the hearing and that the complainant had been given every opportunity to prepare his case
5 FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS OF THE EQUALITY OFFICER
5.1 Preliminary Matter; I am not satisfied that the complainant met the specific requirements of the Act and he remains focussed on matters beyond its scope. Following a detailed questioning of the complainant I find that any deferral of the matter would not put him in a better position to prepare his case for investigation.
5.2 I am mindful that he was on notice of the case and had the opportunity to take advice or be represented. I regard the complainant’s failure to prepare properly for the presentation of his case as a matter for which he bears responsibility and having failed to display any insight into the nature of his case or the burdens of proof which would fall upon him I do not believe a deferral of the investigation will be of any assistance or serve the interests of justice.
5.3 In any event, there was no acceptable explanation for his failure to do so at the hearing convened for the purpose.
5.4 I did put the parties on notice that if I did not find grounds for an extension of time to enable the complainant to make further submissions as a preliminary matter I would proceed to a decision on the complaint.
5.5 Accordingly, as I have decided against any deferral of the matters in the complaint I now do so as the complainant has not established facts necessary to discharge the burden of proof as required by Section 85A of the Act.
6. DECISION
6.1 I have investigated the above complaints and make the following decisions in accordance with section 79 of the Acts that:
· No case has been made out that there was discriminatory treatment in breach of the act and I dismiss the claim
____________________
Pat Brady
Equality Officer
18 September 2015