EQUAL STATUS ACTS 2000-2015
Decision DEC – S2016 – 036
PARTIES
Mr Przemyslaw Senkow (represented by Rostra Solicitors)
-V-
Tesco Ireland Ltd (represented by Nicola Andrews B.L., instructed by the respondent’s in-house solicitor)
File Reference: et-154492-es-15
Date of Issue: 1st June 2016
1. Claim
1.1. The case concerns a claim by Mr Przemyslaw Senkow, that Tesco Ireland Ltd discriminated against him on the ground of race contrary to Section 3(2)(h) of the Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2011, in terms of the respondent’s refusal to accept his age from his Polish ID card when the complainant attempted to purchase alcohol in a particular outlet of the respondent company.
1.2. The complainant referred a complaint under the Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2011 to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 12 March 2015. A submission was received from the complainant on 19 November 2015. A submission was received from the respondent on 10 March 2016. On 23 February 2016, in accordance with his powers under S. 25 of the Acts, the Director General 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 III of the Acts. On this date my investigation commenced. As required by Section 25(1) of the Acts and as part of my investigation, I proceeded to hold a joint hearing of the case on 19 April 2016. At that hearing, it transpired that the complainant would only be able to follow the proceedings, and to give his own evidence, with the aid of an interpreter. Accordingly, he did not give any evidence on this occasion, and I adjourned the matter to 1 June 2016, so that the Commission could provide an interpreter. On 31 May 2016, I received an email from the complainant’s solicitor, and copied to the respondent, in which he advised that his client did not wish to pursue the matter further due to lack of funds. I raised the possibility with the solicitor that his client might wish to withdraw his complaint under the circumstances. However, at the hearing the next morning, Mr Szulc confirmed that he had no instruction to withdraw. He accepted that his client’s complaint would fail for lack of prosecution.
2. Decision
5.1 This decision is issued by me following the establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission on 1st October 2015, as an Adjudication Officer who was an Equality Officer prior to 1st October 2015, in accordance with section 83(3) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015.
5.2 In the light of the foregoing, and in accordance with Section 25(4) of the Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2011, I issue the following decision: As part of my investigation under Section 25 of the Act, I am obliged to hold a hearing into the matter. I find that the complainant’s failure to attend the hearing which was specifically arranged so that he could give evidence through an interpreter 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 allegations of discrimination I conclude the investigation of this complaint and find against the complainant.
______________________
Stephen Bonnlander
Equality Officer
1 June 2016