ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00009484
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Roberto Alamazani | South Dublin County Council |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Service User | A County Council |
Representatives | Did not attend | Mr Lorcan Gogan |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00012412-001 | 11/07/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 13/10/2017 and 15th May 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey
Procedure and Background:
In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000-2015,following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I was available to inquire into the complaint and give the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
The Adjudication hearing was scheduled to take place on 13th October 2017. A little over an hour before the hearing was due to commence, the complainant emailed the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) and confirmed that he would not be in attendance due to ill health. The complainant did not seek to have the hearing postponed in his correspondence to the WRC.
The complainant subsequently submitted a Doctor’s certificate on 27th October 2017 confirming he had been unable to attend the adjudication hearings on 13th October 2017 due to ill health. In the circumstances the WRC rescheduled the complaint for hearing on 15th May 2018. The complainant did not attend the adjudication hearing. On 16th May 2018 the complainant sent an email to say he was unable to attend the previous day due to an illness. On the 18th May 2018 the complainant attended his GP and was retrospectively certified as being unfit for work from 14th- 18th May 2018.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant did not attend the Adjudication hearing and was not represented. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent attended the Adjudication hearing and was prepared to give its evidence in relation to the complaint. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Burden of Proof Section 38A of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2015 states as follows: 38A (1) Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a person from which it may be presumed that prohibited conduct has occurred in relation to him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary. (2) This section is without prejudice to any other enactment or rule of law in relation to the burden of proof in any proceedings which may be more favourable to the person. (3) Where, in any proceedings arising from a reference of a matter by the Authority to the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission under section 23(1), facts are established by or on behalf of the Authority from which it may be presumed that prohibited conduct or a contravention mentioned in that provision has occurred, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary. The complainant did not attend on the first occasion of 13th October 2017 to pursue his complaint. Although he did not seek an adjournment, he was facilitated by the WRC and a new hearing date was arranged. He did not attend on the rescheduled date of 15th May 2018. The day after the adjudication hearing he notified the WRC that he had been unable to attend due to illness and three days after the hearing he submitted a Doctor’s certificate stating that he was unfit to work from 14th-18th May 2018. The complainant did not notify the WRC of his non-attendance in advance of the adjudication hearing on 15th May 2018 and I am not satisfied that the reason he submitted subsequently amounts to a reasonable explanation for his non- attendance. The respondent was present on both occasions to meet the claims submitted. In the circumstances I am satisfied that the complainant has failed to discharge the burden of proof required of him. |
Decision:
Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act.
As the complainant has not attended on two occasions to pursue his complaint, he has failed to establish a prima facie claim of discrimination and the complaint fails. |
Dated:
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey
Key Words:
Burden of proof, prima facie |