Equal Status Acts
DECISION NO: DEC-S2016-050
Daniel Gallagher
V
The Property Registration Authority
File No. ES/2014/0092
Date of Issue: 2nd August 2016
Keywords
Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2011 – Indirect Discrimination, disability,
1 Delegation under the Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2004
Mr Daniel Gallagher (the complainant) referred claims to the Director of the Equality Tribunal under the Equal Status Acts (hereinafter referred to as “the Acts”) on the 10th June 2014. On 22nd December 2015, in accordance with his powers under section 75 of the Equal Status Acts, the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission delegated the case to me, Peter Healy, an Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director General under section 25 of the Acts, on which date my investigation commenced.
This decision is issued by me following the establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission on 1 October 2015, as an Adjudication Officer who was an Equality Officer prior to 1 October 2015, in accordance with section 83.3 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015.
1.3 The dispute concerns claims by the complainant the respondent failed to properly explain a particular Rule under the Registration of Titles Act. It is the respondents position that as a Quasi-Judicial body that they are prohibited from giving advice to applicants such as in the circumstances of this complaint.
2. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS OF THE EQUALITY OFFICER
2.1 Submissions were received from both parties and a hearing of the complainant was scheduled for the 10th June 2016, Davitt House, Dublin 2 and both parties were notified by registered and ordinary post. The notification to both parties requested that they advise, by return, the names of attendees and if any special facilities were required for their participation at the hearing.
2.2 On the 17th May the complainant responded to the notification of the hearing and requesting that an audio recording of the hearing be made available.
2.3 On the 23rd May I responded to the complainant explaining as all hearings are held in private, that the audio recording of the hearing was prohibited. I also advised that if the complainant had any other requirements that would assist the WRC in accommodating his disability that I would be glad to advise on what is permissible under the fair procedures of the hearing.
2.4 On the 26th May 2016, the complaint responded to my letter of the 23rd May with an extensive list of complaints and demanding that audio recording of the hearing be allowed. I issued a response stating that the complaints correspondence had been noted and that the hearing would proceed as originally notified.
2.5 On the 7th June the complaint issued a response stating that he would not attend the hearing due to concerns about an “unfair trial” , “ an extension of time” and late submissions.
2.6 On the 8th of June, I issued a response to the complainant informing that I did not accept any of the reasons put forward for his non-attendance and that the hearing would proceed.
2.7 On the 10th of June, the hearing proceeded but the complainant did not attend. The respondent was in attendance.
3. Conclusions of the Equality Officer
3.1 I am satisfied that I have done all that is necessary to engage with the complainant to assess what could be done to accommodate his disabilities. Based on nature of the correspondence from the complainant, I must conclude that the complainant will not engage regarding his disability and is clearly hostile to the hearing of his complaint. In addition I note that the complainant has breached the confidentiality of the of the investigation when he claims that he has forwarded his correspondence of the 26th May 2016 to third parties including a political figure.
3.2 I find that the reasons given by the complainant at 2.5 above have no basis in fact or are simply misinformed.
3.3 I am satisfied that the complainant was on notice that a hearing in his case was scheduled for the 6th April 2016. I am satisfied that this Tribunal has done all that is reasonable to provide for the complainant’s attendance at a hearing of his complaint.
4. Decision
In the light of the foregoing, and in accordance with the Acts, I issue the following decision:
As part of my investigation under Section 25 of the Acts, I am obliged to hold a Hearing. I find that the complainant’s failure to attend such a hearing was unreasonable in the circumstances and that any obligation under Section 25 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 complainant.
______________
Peter Healy
Adjudication Officer
2nd August 2016