EDA183

This is an appeal by Mr Vadym Kalinin (the Complainant) against the decision of the Adjudication Officer ref adj-00000155-B issued on 26 August 2016. In it the Adjudication Officer decided as follows

“I find that

1) The respondent did not discriminate against the complainant regarding access to promotion on the grounds of civil status, family status, age and race

2) The respondent did not discriminate against the complainant regarding access to training on the ground of civil status, family status, age and race

3) The complainant was not harassed within the meaning of Section 14A of the Acts

4) The complainant was not victimised as defined in Section 74(2) of the Acts"

The Complainant appealed against that decision to this Court on 6 October 2016.

The matter was initially dealt with by way of a case management hearing that took place on 16 June 2017. The substantive matter came on before the Court on 14 December 2017.

When the matter was called on for hearing the Court noted that the complaint under the Act had been presented to the Workplace Relations Commission on 24 November 2015. His last day of employment was 26 May 2015.

Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act 1998 states

(5) ( a ) Subject to paragraph (b) , a claim for redress in respect of discrimination or victimisation may not be referred under this section after the end of the period of 6 months from the date of occurrence of the discrimination or victimisation to which the case relates or, as the case may be, the date of its most recent occurrence.

( b ) On application by a complainant the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission or Circuit Court, as the case may be, may, for reasonable cause, direct that in relation to the complainant paragraph (a) shall have effect as if for the reference to a period of 6 months there were substituted a reference to such period not exceeding 12 months as is specified in the direction; and, where such a direction is given, this Part shall have effect accordingly.

The Court invited the Complainant to identify the discrimination or victimisation that took place within the six month period prior to 24 November 2015. The Court further noted that this in fact amounted to two days during which the Complainant was employed by the Company in the within the statutory time limit.

He identified three complaints to the Court

Firstly he stated that he was required to turn his computer on and off at the beginning and end of his shift. He submitted this requirement amounts to discrimination on the age, race and family status grounds.

Secondly he stated that he normally brought porridge with him each day for his lunch. When preparing the porridge for consumption his colleagues commented that he added only water to it which they found unusual. He stated that this was a cultural matter and that the comments amounted to discrimination on the Race ground.

Thirdly he told the Court that, unlike other staff members who resigned their employment with the Respondent, he was escorted from the building after he was dismissed.

He offered no evidence in support of either the first or second contentions above or in support of the complaint that the Respondent had harassed him within the meaning of the Act.

He offered no evidence that other dismissed members of staff were treated differently in the manner in which they exited the Company.

Section 85A of the Act states

85A.— (1) Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a complainant from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination in relation to him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.

Findings of the Court

The Court finds that the complainant offered no evidence and established no facts from which it may be presumed there has been discrimination in relation to him. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the appeal and affirms the decision of the Adjudication Officer.

The Court so determines.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Brendan Hayes
LS______________________
05 January 2018Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Louise Shally, Court Secretary.