ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00003451

Complaint for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/10/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle

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. 

A German translator was in attendance for the Complainant provided by the Workplace Relations for this case.

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

The complainant did not attend the hearing.

The Complainant submitted details of her case on the complaint form and the form ES. 1 which can be summarised as follows:

The Complainant submitted that she was discriminated against by the respondent who used her old name in a letter dated 18^th April 2016.

The complainant stated that the name had legally being changed and that by using her old name it exposed her “old male” identity to the public including postal workers in a local rural community. She felt extremely harassed and discriminated by this act and regardless of whether it was a mistake it hurt her feelings, self-esteem and personal wellbeing.

While the complainant acknowledged that the respondent promised to remove her old name from their system, the complainant said that there was no “making up” for the hurt and mental pain caused.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The Respondent attended the hearing.

By way of written reply to the complainant, in form ES2, they stated that it was a mistake and that they should have checked with the complainant first with regards to what name to use on the address.

They said there was no intention to cause any difficulty or harm or to harass the complainant by this act and that they wish to respect the wishes of all service users to be addressed in the way that is most agreeable to them.

They stated that there was no intention to insult the complainant or anyone who should have seen the letter.

The Respondent apologised unreservedly for any hurt caused which was not intended. They stated that as this was not a public act but concerned the second name on a letter address that they believe this severely limits any possible reputational damages.

They advised that to redress this they will communicate with the complainant if they are unclear about how to address any communication in future and will take steps internally to ensure that the first name is changed to reflect the complainants concerns. They will delete reference to the “old name” where this is possible, mindful of the need to keep accurate records.

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.]

Issues for Decision:

Complaint of discrimination on the grounds of gender in relation to the provision of services.

Legislation involved and requirements of legislation:

Equal Status Acts 2000-2015

Decision:

As the Complainant failed to attend the hearing, I confirmed that a letter had issued notifying the Complainant of the date, time and location of the hearing and find their non-attendance without any acceptable explanation to be unexplained in the circumstances, and my decision is, therefore:

CA-00004562-001 – Equal Status Acts 2000-2015

The claim is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Dated:   29^th November 2016