ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00001071

Complaint for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/06/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

This case concerns a complaint by the complainant that she was discriminated against by the respondent Hotel on the Traveller community ground contrary to 5(1) of the Equal Status Acts 2000-2008[hereinafter referred to as “the Acts”]. On 16 November, 2015, the complainant referred a claim to the Workplace Relations Commission under the Acts .On 11 May, 2016; the Director delegated the case to me, Patsy Doyle, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part III of the Equal Status Acts. This is the date my investigation commenced. As required by section 25(1) and as part of my investigation, I proceeded to hearing on 7 June, 2016.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The respondent explained that he was acting on behalf of the receiver, who was running the hotel at the time of the event complained of.

Decision:

Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 200 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act.

At the outset there were a number of issues, identified by me, which required clarification at the hearing. The complainant lodged the complaint form one day past the statutory time limit. At the time, the complainant explained that they had difficulty in submitting the form on line and were compelled to send by surface mail. I was prepared to hear submissions on this point at the hearing from both parties.

Secondly, the ES I form had not been submitted. Section 21 (2) of the Acts, provides that:

“Before seeking redress under this section, the complainant ----

1. Shall within 2 months after the prohibited conduct is alleged to have occurred, or, where more than one incident of prohibited conduct is alleged to have occurred, within 2 months after the last such occurrence, notify the respondent in writing of---

1. The nature of the allegation

2. The complainants intention, if not satisfied with the respondent’s response to the allegation.to seek redress under this Act.

   And

1. May in that notification, with a view to assisting the complainant in deciding whether to refer the case to the Director or as the case may be, the Circuit Court, question the respondent in writing so as to obtain material information and the respondent may , if the respondent wishes, reply to any such questions .”

I was also prepared to hear from the parties on this key document at the hearing.

The complainant was notified of the date of hearing, on, May 11 2016. The complainant representatives made a number of applications for adjournment, citing unavailability of witnesses, but did not attach any specific documentation in support of this assertion and the application was refused on June 3^rd 2016 and they were informed that the hearing would go ahead on June 7^th , 2016 at 10 am . There was no appearance by the complainant at the hearing. In light of the foregoing and in accordance with Section 25(4) of 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 failure of the complainant to attend such a hearing was not reasonable 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, in relation to this complaint, I conclude the investigation of the complaint and find against the complainant .

Dated:   19^th July 2016