ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00002339

Complaint for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 20/12/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Enda Murphy

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 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.

The hearing of the complaint was initially scheduled to take place on 19^th July, 2016 but was adjourned on the request of the Complainant on the basis that he was seeking to engage representation in relation to the matter. The hearing was subsequently rescheduled for 20^th December, 2016. Neither party was in attendance at the hearing on this date.

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

The positions of Staff Officer and Administration Officer with the respondent were advertised in a national newspaper on 6 March, 2016. When the Complainant proceeded to apply for these positions he noted that the essential requirements in respect of the Administration Officer position in relation to “Education, Training, Experience etc.” stated that the applicant needed to be “a serving employee in a local authority, health board, vocational education committee in the State, institute of technology, the General Medical Services (Payments) Board, St. James’s Hospital Board, Beaumont Hospital Board, An Board Altranais, the Local Government Computer Services Board, the Border, Midland and Regional Assembly or the Southern and Eastern Regional Assembly and have, satisfactory experience at a level not lower than that of Assistant Staff Officer”. The post of Staff Officer also referred to the above requirements but stated that “you needed to have satisfactory experience in a post of Clerical Officer or in an analogous post”. The Complainant claims that the above essential requirements are indirectly discriminatory against non-Irish nationals contrary to the Employment Equality Acts as it adversely affects candidates who have not worked within the above Irish public sector bodies.

The Complainant did not attend or was not represented at the Hearing.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The Respondent did not make a written submission in response to the complaint.

The Respondent did not attend or was not represented at the Hearing.

Issue for Decision:

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.

Decision:

When the Complainant was not present as the beginning of the hearing, I adjourned the hearing for 20 minutes in case he was late. I also made enquiries within the WRC as to whether the Complainant had been in contact to explain his absence. The Complainant did not appear and was not in contact with the WRC to explain his absence. I am satisfied that the notification of the hearing date issued to the Complainant, confirming the venue, date and time of the hearing at the address provided and further that he did not contact the WRC to indicate any difficulty or seek an adjournment. A period of time has been allowed to elapse after the hearing before issuing this decision to allow the Complainant to contact the WRC with an explanation for his non-attendance but no such contact has been made.

As noted above, I am obliged to hold a hearing into the matter as part of my investigation under Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts. I find that the Complainant’s failure to attend the hearing was unreasonable in the circumstances and that any obligation under Section 79 of the Acts has ceased. As no evidence was given at the hearing in support of the allegation of discrimination, I conclude the investigation and find against the Complainant.

Dated:   25^th April 2017