ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00001394
Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00001909-001 | 07/01/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/06/2016
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Tierney
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 [and/or Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, and/or Section 9 of the Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency) Act, 1984, and/or Section 79 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998, and/or Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000] following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:
The Claimant applied for rent supplement in January 2015. He believes that he has been discriminated by the Rent Supplement Unit since February 2015. He stated that he gave them enough time to progress his application. There are outstanding payments due. He requested his local TD and Cross Care to enquire about the delay but they were unsuccessful.
He has a Latvian friend who got her rent supplement within two months. He only found out in November that they did not pay his rent arrears from September 2014 to January 2015. He believes that they deliberately caused a delay. He appealed the case and it was heard in July 2015. The Appeals Officer ordered the Department to pay all the rent arrears and regular rent supplement. He lodges the ES1 form and gave them 30 days to comply with the order. Details of his dealing with the Rent Supplement Unit were provided to the Hearing. |
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:
The Respondent submitted a detailed timeline in dealing with this case. It was accepted that there had been so delays in this case. This was due in part from the Claimant not submitting adequate information and documentation to the Unit. There were also concerns in regard to his bank account and movement of large sums of money from it prior to receiving documentation.
In July 2015, after the oral hearing, and the decision of the Appeals Officer to allow the appeal and he provided sufficient information for the purposes of deciding the claim and that the appellant be assessed with means of €193.50 (derived from an invalidity pension), it decided to implement the decision. Rent supplement was awarded from 5 May 2015 (i.e. from receipt of the application).
Since the claim dated back six months a review of the documents took place. Details in this regard were provided to the Hearing. Other difficulties arouse due to lack of adequate documentation and difficulty in contacting the Claimant.
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 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
Section 9(3) of the Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency) Act, 1984 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 9(4) of that Act.
Section 79(6) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the 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:
Was the Claimant discriminated against on the grounds of disability and race?
Legislation involved and requirements of legislation:
Equal Statue Act 2000 - 2008
Decision:
I have considered the submissions made by both parties. I have reviewed the timeline and the reasons for the delays in dealing the Claimant’s claim by the Rent Supplement Unit. I am satisfied that the Claimant also contributed to the delay by not providing adequate documentation in the first place. The activities in his bank account further raised concerns for the staff in the Unit.
I accept that the delays in this case were for reasons other than disability or race. I do not find the claims well founded and they fail.
Dated: 5th October 2016