ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007572
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | A Complainant | An Employer |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00010171-001 | 11 March 2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 20 October 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Procedure:
On the 11th March 2017, the complainant referred a complaint to Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to the Equal Status Acts. The complaint was scheduled for adjudication on the 20th October 2017.
At the time the adjudication was scheduled to commence, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant. I waited some time to accommodate a late arrival and verified that the complainant was on notice of the time, date and venue of the adjudication. Having taken these steps, I proceeded with the adjudication in the absence of the complainant.
I later learnt that the complainant emailed the Workplace Relations Commission on the morning of the adjudication to indicate that he could not attend because of ill-health. He was asked to provide medical certification of this. On the 25th October 2017, he emailed with details of medication and this was accompanied by a prescription.
In accordance with section25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000following 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.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant asserts discrimination on the grounds of race and age in relation to the provision of a service. The complaint relates to the contents of an email sent by a settlement worker to the Residential Tenancies Board as evidence for a Tenancy Tribunal hearing. The ES1 form refers to the grounds of gender and race as well as to victimisation. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent attended the adjudication to meet the claim. It asserted that pursuant to section 105 of the Residential Tenancies Act, a witness appearing before a Tenancy Tribunal is entitled to the same immunities and privileges as a witness before the High Court. It relied on In re Haughey [1971] 1 I.R. 217. It submitted that the Workplace Relations Commission does not have jurisdiction to hear this claim as it related to evidence presented as part of a Tenancy Tribunal hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant did not attend the adjudication to advance his complaint pursuant to the Employment Equality Act. He was asked to provide medical certification of his unfitness to attend. The complainant has not provided certification that he was unfit to attend the adjudication. The complainant’s emails and accompanying prescription are insufficient to require that the hearing be re-scheduled.
For this reason, I find that the complaint is not well-founded. It is not, therefore, necessary to address the respondent’s preliminary issue of whether an email sent by one of its employees in the context of a Tenancy Tribunal hearing falls within the scope of section 105(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act. |
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.
CA-00010171-001 The complaint made pursuant to the Equal Status Acts is not well-founded as the complainant failed to attend the adjudication to advance his complaint. |
Dated: 26 June 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham