DECISION NO. DEC-E2016-075
PARTIES
Ewelina Bilska
(Represented by Chris Ryan Solicitors)
AND
Embassy of Beauty
(Represented by O’Hanrahan Lally Solicitors)
1. DISPUTE
1.1. This dispute concerns a claim by Ewelina Bilska that she was discriminated against by Embassy of Beauty on the grounds of family status contrary to section 6 of the Employment Equality Acts in relation to conditions of employment in terms of section 8 of those Acts.
1.2. The complainant referred a claim to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 19th December 2014 under the Employment Equality Acts. On 4 April 2016 in accordance with his powersunder section 75 of the Employment Equality Acts, the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission referred the case to me, Pat Brady an Adjudication Officer/Equality Officer for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director (General) under Part VII of the Acts, on which date my investigation commenced. Submissions were received from both sides. In accordance with Section 79(1) of the Employment Equality Acts and as part of my investigation I proceeded to a hearing on April 7th 2016.
1.3. 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.
2. Complainant’s Case
2.1. The complainant initially submitted her complaint under the Equal Status Act and this was amended to a complaint under the Employment Equality Acts on February 12th 2015.
2.2. She says that her employment was terminated on November 5th 2014 as she was not in a position to accept a change in her working hours for family reasons.
2.3. She says she was not aware of the correct identity of her employer.
3. Respondent’s Case
3.1. The named respondent in this case, Embassy of Beauty ceased trading on March 31st 2011. Evidence of the CRO record in this regard was exhibited.
3.2. The claimant was employed between August 1st 2014 and November 2nd 2014 and therefore never employed by the named respondent. Her then actual employer attended and provided evidence that the complainant’s employment contract was with a different entity. This evidence included a copy of her Contract of Employment, payslips and the notice of termination of her employment where her correct employer is clearly identified.
4. Conclusions and findings.
4.1. I am required to address the identification of the respondent as a preliminary matter. I find that the named respondent was never at any time the complainant’s employer and has been incorrectly identified as the employer/respondent. In the circumstances I cannot proceed to any finding on the matter against the named respondent as the entity against whom the case has been lodged no longer exists.
4.2. I also find that the complainant ought to have been fully aware of the correct identifier of her employer as there was ample evidence of it, not least in the notice terminating her employment (of which she was given a version in her native language, Polish).
4.3. The complainant’s representative sought to amend the claim in October 20th 2015 but only on the basis that the actual owner of ‘Embassy of Beauty’ was not the person it had previously understood to be the owner. It correctly identified the business CRO number but was apparently unaware that it had ceased trading.
4 DECISION
I have investigated the above complaint and make the following decision in accordance with section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts and section 41 (5) (a) (iii) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 that:
- The complainant has failed to properly identify the correct respondent and I dismiss the complaint.
____________________
Pat Brady
Adjudication Officer/Equality Officer
31st May 2016