ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00013244
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Customer | A Credit Union |
Representatives | H.G. Carpendale & Co | Alastair Purdy & Co Solicitors |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00017590-001 | 22/02/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 02/08/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: James Kelly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000, 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.
Background:
The Complainant claims that she was discriminated on the disability and marital status grounds, while attempting to access services provided by the Respondent. The Respondent denies the allegation raised. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend the hearing and was not represented. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent sent a representative to the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Hearing was scheduled for 10am. On the day of the hearing when it was evident that the complainant nor her representatives were in attendance, I suspended the hearing for some time to allow for his late arrival. In that time, I made contact with the Workplace Relations Commission to see if the complainant had been in touch to explain her non-attendance. I was informed she had not made contact. The Respondent sent a representative to the hearing who said that it was his understanding that the case had settled and I would get notice from the complainant side. I wrote to the complainant’s legal representative on 3 September 2018 seeking an update on the case, a reply to be received by no later than close of business on 7 September 2018. I did not receive any communication in return. On that basis, and as the complainant did not attend the hearing, and as no evidence was given at this hearing in support of the allegations of discrimination, I conclude the investigation and find against the complainant. |
Decision:
As part of my investigation under Section 25 of the Act, I am obliged to hold a hearing into the matter. I find that the complainant’s failure to attend such a hearing was unreasonable in the circumstances and that any obligation under Section 25 has ceased. There is a requirement for the complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts upon which she can rely in asserting that prohibited conduct has occurred, in other words, to establish a prima facie case. It is only when a prima facie case has been established that the burden of proof shifts to the respondent to rebut the presumption of discrimination. The complainant failed to attend the hearing and consequently has not established a prima facie case. Accordingly, I conclude the investigation of this complaint and find against the complainant. |
Dated: 18/09/18
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: James Kelly
Key Words:
Equal Status Acts – no attendance - not established a prima facie case. |