FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 83 (1), EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS, 1998 TO 2015 PARTIES : REVENUE COMMISSIONERS (REPRESENTED BY ANTHONY KERR S.C.) - AND - JUNE CAMPBELL DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No: DEC-E2017-042
BACKGROUND:
2. The Appellant appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 17 July 2017. A Case Management took place on 6 March 2018. Two Labour Court hearings took place on 18 September and 1 October 2018. The following is the Court's Determination:
DETERMINATION:
This is an appeal by Ms June Campbell against the decision of an Equality Officer in a claim of discrimination on the gender ground against her former employer Revenue Commissioners. under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 – 2011 (now the Employment Equality Acts 1998 -2015) (hereafter “the Acts”).
For ease of reference the parties are given the same designation as they had at first instance. Hence Ms June Campbell will be referred to as “the Complainant” and Revenue Commissioners will be referred to as “the Respondent”.
The Complainant claimed to have been sexually harassed, discriminated against in terms of her conditions of employment and subjected to victimisation. The Adjudication Officer did not find in favour of her claims under the Act.
The within complaints were presented to the Equality Tribunal by notice dated 1stNovember 2013. The hearings before the Equality Officer’s took place on 30thNovember 2015 and 26thJanuary 2016. Her Decision was issued on 16th June 2017. The notice of appeal is dated 17th July 2017.
This matter first came before the Court on 6thMarch 2018 when a case management conference was held.
The Complainant had referred a number of claims under various enactments against the Respondent at different times to the Equality Tribunal and to the Workplace Relations Commission. The precise details of the claims referred to the Equality Tribunal and on appeal to this Court were not clear from the papers filed in the case. In these circumstances, the Court convened a case management conference on 6thMarch 2018 before listing the case for hearing to identify the range of issues arising in the appeal and to determine the time which the hearing was likely to take.
The Complainant appeared as an unrepresented party. The Respondent was represented by Counsel and Solicitors. In the course of the case management conference it became clear that, the matters on appeal falling within the cognisable time period related to an (i) alleged act of sexual harassment on 2ndMay 2013 and (ii) the details contained in the Respondent’s referral of her to the Chief Medical Officer in May and June 2013 which she alleged amounted to acts of victimisation.
Progress of the Case
Significant difficulties arose in progressing the case, due to the approach taken by the Complainant, including seeking to persistently communicate with the Court with questions and impugning its integrity. In an effort to assist the Complainant and explain to her the matters that were before the Court, it furnished her with specific details of its understanding of the issues to be addressed at the hearing as clarified at the case management conference.
The matter was set down for hearing over two days, 18thand 19thSeptember 2018. These dates had been agreed with the parties in advance. At a very late stage the Complainant by email sought an adjournment as she was unwell. The Court took the unusual step of writing to the Complainant, and outlined the difficulties it had in attempting to progress her claim, as follows:-
- The Court wishes to note the following in respect of your appeal of the Equality Officer’s Decision which was submitted by you to this Court on 17thJuly 2017:
1.A case management hearing was scheduled for 24thNovember 2017. You requested a postponement of this hearing and your postponement application was granted by the Court.
2.At the rescheduled case management hearing on 6thMarch 2018, you sought further postponements due to Data Protection cases that you were pursing. The Court rejected this application for a postponement.
3.On 17thAugust 2018 you sought a further postponement as you indicated that you were considering taking a Judicial Review of the case management proceedings. This application was also rejected by the Court.
4.On 10thSeptember 2018 you sought a further deferral of proceedings due to clarification requests that you raised on certain matters. This application was also rejected by the Court.
5.You are now seeking a postponement due to illness and have submitted a medical certificate to the Court.
The Court wishes to point out that it has put in significant time and effort into preparing for your appeal. It has set aside two full days from its very busy schedule to hear your appeal. As a publicly funded service, the Court has a duty and responsibility to both parties to process your appeal as expeditiously as possible. Witnesses on both sides are scheduled to be at the hearing in the next two days. Certain matters in this case refer back as far as 2012, for those giving evidence in this case, it is imperative that it is heard as soon as possible.
The Complainant at various stages of this case made unfounded allegations against the Court, the Workplace Relations Commission, the Respondent and various others. The Court totally rejects the allegations made by her. The Court’s investigation was also hampered by a number of adjournment requests made by her, many of which were made at a late stage. In view of these adjournment requests, the Court found it exceedingly difficult to set dates for the hearing. Despite the case conference and further written clarification, the Complainant continued to submit lengthy emails, the majority of which contained serious unfounded allegations against the Court and other parties.
Finally, on the eve of the hearing convened for Monday 1stOctober 2018, the Complainant sent an email to the Court stating that she would not be in attendance.
In her email to the Court she made further unfounded allegations:-“There have been constant deliberate obstructions to this case from day 1 and the court has accepted a report that is basically a smear campaign against me (nonetheless are forgeries) for making a complaint….”
The Court totally rejects the allegations made by her.
Application by the Respondent to Strike Out the Appeal
The hearing was scheduled to take place over two days, 1stand 15thOctober 2018. The Complainant did not appear on 1stOctober 2018. The Respondent was present with legal counsel, Mr Tony Kerr, SC instructed by the Respondent’s legal advisers and eight witnesses, many of whom had travelled long distances.
Mr Kerr made an application to the Court to strike out the Complainant’s case. He submitted that as the Complainant had ceased to pursue her appeal of the Equality Officer’s Decision, in accordance with Section 102 (2) of the Acts the Court should strike out the appeal. In the alternative, he sought to have the Complainant’s claim fail for lack of prosecution.
In support of his application, he referred to the serious difficulties the Respondent has encountered in attempting to finalise this case. He referred to the fact that the Complainant has submitted 95 Data Protection requests and six Freedom of Information requests. Mr Kerr told the Court that the Respondent had incurred significant time and expense in attending the hearings accompanied by its witnesses. In support of his application he said that the Respondent was entitled to have certainty and finality to the matter, which had been ongoing for so long.
Determination
Having considered the application, the Court decides that in all the circumstances of this case, the Complainant’s appeal fails for lack of prosecution and the Equality Officer's Decision stands.
The Court so Determines.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
TH______________________
8 October, 2018Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.