ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00003452

Complaints 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 felt that the respondent made a decision not to provide an interpreter at a District Court hearing involving the complainant in order to have control over her and to discriminate against her. The complainant detailed that this complaint is also because of the harassment connected to victimisation of another named person. The complainant stated that in previous meetings with the respondent a translator was present and that the respondent failed to advise the District Court that an interpreter would be necessary in order for the complainant to defend herself.

The complainant believed that this decision by the respondent to go to court to gain a supervision order was only done to gain power and that the respondent should have instead worked with the complainant as per the respondent’s handbook. The complainant stated in the claim form that the respondent did not treat as serious that the complainant was taking legal action against the respondent.

Furthermore the complainant detailed that the respondent failed to order an interpreter for the complainant’s scheduled court hearing and that the respondent committed perjury at this hearing with regard to the information they provided stating that children were at risk of illness from cats.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The respondent attended the hearing.

In a written statement by way of reply to the complainant’s form ES. 1 the respondent had stated that the consideration and provision of translators as part of court proceedings does not rest with the respondent and that it was a matter for the District Court. They furthermore advised that it was their understanding that this issue was considered by the sitting Judge and that the Judge regarded that the complainant was appropriately able to translate for a named person and that the complainant raised no objection at the time.

The respondent therefore does not accept or uphold the complaint by the complainant.

Decision:

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

Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 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 and grounds of race in relation to the provision of services.

Legislation involved:

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-00005037-001 –Equal Status Acts 2000-2015

The claim is dismissed for want of prosecution.

CA-00005037-002 –Equal Status Acts 2000-2015

The claim is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Dated:   29^th November 2016