Employment Equality Acts 1998 - 2015
Decision No: DEC-E2019-003
Parties:
Mark O’Mahony
V
Gael Taca Teoranta
(Represented by Mr J Barrett B.L. instructed by Cliona Ni Chathain)
File No: et -158345-ee-15
- Dispute
This dispute involves a claim by the complainant that he was discriminated against by the respondent, on grounds of disability during a Community Employment Scheme (CE scheme).
- Background
The Complainant referred a complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1998 - to the Equality Tribunal on 9 January 2015. The Complanate submitted that he had been discriminated against on grounds of disability, harassed, and denied reasonable accommodation. The Complainant submitted his complaints on an ES1 form and clarified later in May 2016 that he wished to advance his complaints under both the Equal Status Act and the Employment Equality Act.
This case is joined with ET-152269-es-14.
On 6 August 2015, the Respondent was provided with a copy of the complaint. On 2 September 2015, the respondent requested that the Tribunal would communicate with them in Irish. In this letter they mentioned that the Labour Court had dismissed the complainants demands and the claims were submitted outside the time limit.
In accordance with his powers under the Employment Equality Act, the Director General delegated the case on the 25 October 2018, to me, Patsy Doyle, Adjudicator/Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director in accordance with the Acts. This is the date I commenced my investigation.
As required under Section 79 of the Act and as part of my investigation, I proceeded to hearing on 20 December 2018. The Respondent consented to amend the title of the company at hearing.
The Complainant outlined his complaints on an ES 3 form and made a further written submission on 11 April 2016. At this time, he raised a problem understanding the Irish translation. He sought that the matter proceed in English. There was no further communication from the complainant prior to the hearing. He did not attend the hearing on 20 December 2018.
The Complainant was notified by ordinary and registered post of the impending hearing date on 27 November 2018 to the same address used on the primary complaints.
He did not send a Representative or make any contact with the service either before or after the hearing in relation to any reason for his non-appearance.
The Respondent requested that the case be run through the Irish Language. All communication and documentation have been translated to facilitate this request. An Irish Interpreter was present at hearing.
The Respondent had filed a written response to the complainant’s case. It had also prepared to address the complainant’s submissions on the day of hearing, but, in his absence, sought that the case be dismissed. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that as the burden of proof rested on the complainant, by his absence the case must fall.
I note that the registered letter addressed to the complainant, containing the invitation to hearing issued on November 27, 2018 was not returned.
In complainants submitted under Employment Equality Legislation, the onus of proof is initially on the complainant. If the complainant reaches this burden, the case moves to the respondent to answer.
Burden of proof.
Section 85A. — (1) Where in any proceeding’s 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.
(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 a complainant.
(3) Where, in any proceedings arising from a reference of a matter by the Authority to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission under section 85(1), facts are established by or on behalf of the Authority from which it may be presumed that an action or a failure mentioned in a paragraph of that provision has occurred, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.
(4) In this section ‘discrimination’ includes —
(a) indirect discrimination,
(b) victimisation,
(c) harassment or sexual harassment,
(d) the inclusion in a collective agreement to which section 9 applies of a provision which, by that section, is null and void.
In the absence of any presentation of evidence from the complainant, I must find that the Burden of Proof necessitated by Section 85A of the Act has not been satisfied.
The Claims are not well founded.
- Decision
This decision is issued by me following the establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission on 1 October 2015, as an Adjudication Officer who was an Equality Officer prior to 1 October 2015, in accordance with Section 84 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015.
I have concluded my investigation and issue the following decision.
As part of my investigation under Section 79 of the Acts, I am obliged to hold a hearing. I am satisfied that the complainant was notified of the arrangements for the hearing. I find that the complainant’s failure to attend such a hearing was unreasonable in the circumstances and that any obligation under Section 79 has ceased. As no evidence was given at the hearing in support of the allegations of discrimination, I conclude the investigation and find against the complainant.
_____________________________
Patsy Doyle (Padraigin ni Dhuil )
Adjudicator / Equality Officer
Date: 2nd April 2019
Na hAchtanna um Chomhionannas Fostaíochta, 1998 - 2015
Uimh. Chinnidh: DEC-E2019-003
Páirtithe:
Marc Ó Mathúna
V
Gael Taca Teoranta
(A bhfuil an tUas J Barrett, Abhcóide Dlí, ag feidhmiú ar a son, faoi theagasc Chlíona Ní Chatháin)
Uimh. Chomhaid: et-158345-ee-15
- An Díospóid
Is éard atá sa díospóid seo ná éileamh a rinne an gearánach go ndearna an freagróir leithcheal air ar fhoras míchumais le linn Scéime Fostaíochta Pobail (Scéim FP).
- Cúlra
Chuir an Gearánach gearán faoin Acht um Chomhionannas Fostaíochta 1998 faoi bhráid an Bhinse Comhionannais ar an 9 Eanáir 2015. D’aighnigh an Gearánach go ndearnadh leithcheal air ar fhoras míchumais, go ndearnadh é a chiapadh, agus gur diúltaíodh freastal réasúnta a chur ar fáil dó. Ba ar fhoirm ES1 a chuir an Gearánach isteach a ghearáin agus níos déanaí, i mBealtaine 2016, shoiléirigh sé go raibh sé ag iarraidh a ghearáin a chur ar aghaidh faoi bhun an Achta um Stádas Comhionann agus an Achta um Chomhionannas Fostaíochta araon.
Tá an cás seo ceangailte le et-152269-es-14.
Ar an 6 Lúnasa 2015, cuireadh cóip den ghearán ar fáil don Fhreagróir. Ar an 2 Meán Fómhair 2015, d’éiligh an freagróir gur trí Ghaeilge a ndéanfadh an Binse teagmháil leis. Sa litir sin, rinne siad tagairt go ndearna an Chúirt Oibreachais gearáin an ghearánaigh a dhíbhe agus go ndearnadh iad a aighniú lasmuigh den teorainn ama.
De réir an cumhacht atá aige faoi bhun an Achta um Chomhionannas Fostaíochta, ar an 25 Deireadh Fómhair 2018, rinne an tArd-Stiúrthóir an cás a tharmligean dom, Patsy Doyle, Breithneoir/Oifigeach Comhionannais, le mionscrúdú a dhéanamh air, le héisteacht agus cinneadh a dhéanamh air, agus le feidhmeanna oiriúnacha eile de chuid an Stiúrthóra a dhéanamh air de réir na nAchtanna. Is é sin an dáta ar chuir mé tús leis an mionscrúdú atá déanta agam.
Chuaigh mé ar aghaidh chun an gearán a éisteacht ar an 20 Nollaig 2018 de réir mar a cheanglaítear orm faoi alt 79 den Acht, mar chuid den mhionscrúdú atá déanta agam. Thoiligh an Freagróir le teideal na cuideachta a bheith leasaithe ag an éisteacht.
Rinne an Gearánach achoimre ar a ghearáin ar fhoirm ES 3 agus rinne sé aighneacht bhreise ar an 11 Aibreán 2016. Ag an am sin, tharraing sé anuas fadhb a bhí aige tuiscint a bhaint amach as an aistriúchán Gaeilge. D’iarr sé go leanfar ar aghaidh leis an gcás i mBéarla. Ní raibh aon teachtaireacht ón nGearánach ina dhiaidh sin roimh don éisteacht. Níor fhreastail sé ar an éisteacht ar an 20 Nollaig 2018.
Ar an 27 Samhain 2018, cuireadh an Gearánach ar an eolas faoin dáta éisteachta a bhí ag druidim isteach trí litir ghnáthphoist agus trí litir sa phost chláraithe a cuireadh chuig an seoladh céanna a úsáideadh sna bunghearáin.
Níor iarr sé ar aon Ionadaí freastal ann agus ní dhearna sé aon teagmháil leis an tseirbhís i ndáil le haon chúis lena neamhláithreacht, bíodh sé sin roimh don éisteacht nó ina dhiaidh.
D’iarr an Freagróir go riarfar an cás i nGaeilge. Táthar tar éis an teachtaireacht agus na doiciméid go léir a aistriú chun freastal ar an iarraidh seo. Bhí Ateangaire Gaeilge i láthair ag an éisteacht.
Bhí freagra scríofa do chás an ghearánaigh comhdaithe ag an Fhreagróir. Anuas air sin, bhí siad ullmhaithe chun aighneachtaí an ghearánaigh a phlé ar lá na héisteachta ach, ina éagmais, d’éiligh siad go ndéanfar an cás a dhíbhe. D’aighnigh Abhcóide an Fhreagróra go gcaithfear go dteipfeadh leis an gcás trí éagmais an gearánach a bheith i láthair, toisc gur ar an ngearánach atá an dualgas cruthúnais.
Cuirimse suntas sa litir chláraithe a sheoladh chuig an ngearánach ina raibh cuireadh chuig an éisteacht, ar eisigh é ar an 27 Samhain 2018 agus nach ndearnadh í a thabhairt ar ais.
Bíonn an dualgas cruthúnais ar an ngearánach i dtosach i ngearáin a dhéantar faoi bhun na reachtaíochta um Chomhionannas Fostaíochta. Más rud é go n-éiríonn leis an ngearánach an dualgas sin a shásamh, aistríonn an cás chuig an fhreagróir chun cosaint a thabhairt dó.
An Dualgas Cruthúnais.
Alt 85A. — (1) Más rud é, in aon imeachtaí, go ndéanann gearánach fíricí a shuiteáil, nó go ndéantar iad a shuiteáil thar a cheann, a bhféadfaí a thoimhde astu go bhfuil idirdhealú tar éis a bheith déanta ina leith, sa chás sin is faoin fhreagróir atá sé a mhalairt a chruthú.
(2) Ní dochar an t-alt seo d’aon achtachán eile nó d’aon riail sa dlí maidir leis an Dualgas Cruthúnais in aon imeachtaí a fhéadfaidh a bheith níos fábhrúla do ghearánach.
(3) Más rud é, in aon imeachtaí a éireoidh as ceist a bheith atreoraithe ag an Údarás chuig Ard-Stiúrthóir an Choimisiúin um Chaidreamh san Áit Oibre de réir alt 85(1), ina ndéanann an tÚdarás fíricí a shuiteáil, nó go ndéantar iad a shuiteáil thar ceann an Údaráis, a bhféadfaí a thoimhde astu go bhfuil gníomh nó teip atá sonraithe san alt ina ndéantar an fhoráil sin tar éis tarlú, is faoin fhreagróir a bhíonn sé a mhalairt a chruthú.
(4) San alt seo, folaíonn ‘idirdhealú’ —
(a) idirdhealú díreach agus indíreach,
(b) an íospairt,
(c) an ciapadh nó an ciapadh gnéasach,
(d) aon tráth a n-áirítear foráil atá ar neamhní go hiomlán de réir alt 9 mar chuid de chomhaontú comhchoiteann a bhfuil baint ag an alt sin leis.
D’éagmais fianaise a bheith curtha i láthair ag an ngearánach, níl de rogha agam ach cinneadh a dhéanamh nach bhfuiltear tar éis an Dualgas Cruthúnais atá ina cheanglas de réir Alt 85A den Acht a shásamh.
Ní raibh bonn leis an ngearán.
- An Cinneadh
Déanaimse an cinneadh seo a eisiúint i ndiaidh bhunaíocht an Choimisiúin um Chaidreamh san Áit Oibre ar an 1 Deireadh Fómhair 2015, i mo cháilíocht mar Oifigeach Breithnithe a bhí i m’Oifigeach Comhionannais roimh don 1 Deireadh Fómhair 2015, ar aon dul le hAlt 84 den Acht um Chaidreamh san Áit Oibre, 2015.
Ag seo a leanas, an cinneadh atá déanta agam tar éis don mhionscrúdú a bheith críochnaithe agam.
De réir Alt 79 de na hAchtanna, tá oibleagáid orm éisteacht a dhéanamh mar chuid den mhionscrúdú atá déanta agam. Táim sásta gur cuireadh an gearánach ar an eolas faoi na socruithe don éisteacht. Is é an cinneadh atá déanta agam ná nach raibh sé réasúnta sna himthosca gur theip ar an ngearánach freastal ar éisteacht dála agus nach bhfuil feidhm níos mó ag aon oibleagáid faoi Alt 79. De bharr nach raibh aon fhianaise ag an éisteacht chun tacú leis na líomhaintí gur tharla idirdhealú, táimse tar éis an mionscrúdú a thabhairt chun críche agus déanaimse cinneadh in éadan an ghearánaigh.
_______________________________
Patsy Doyle (Pádraigín Ní Dhubhghaill)
Breithneoir / Oifigeach Comhionannais
Dáta: 2 Aibreán 2019