Equal Status Acts
Decision No: DEC-S2019-006
Parties:
Mark O’Mahony
V
Gael Taca Teoranta
(Represented by Mr J Barrett B.L., instructed by Cliona Ni Chathain)
File No: et-152269-ES-14
- 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). The Complainant submitted an ES1 form on 27 September 2014 and did not receive a response to this.
- Background
The Complainant referred a complaint under the Equal Status Acts 2000-2015 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 an ES 3 form accompanied by an ES1 form. On 22 January 2015, the Respondent was provided with a copy of the complaint and was requested to provide a statement in response. On the same day, the Complainant was requested to clarify which legislation he wished to advance his complaint under as he had filed complaints under both the Employment Equality Act and the Equal Status Acts.
On the 8 June 2015, the Complainant confirmed that he wished to advance under both pieces of legislation.
In accordance with his powers under the Equal Status Acts 2000-2015, 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 25 (1) 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.
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
The Complainant outlined his complaints on an ES 3 form attaching a copy of an ES1 form. He did not make a follow up submission and 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. This complaint is joined with ET -158345-ee-15.
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.
They had prepared to address the complainant’s submissions but, in his absence, sought that the case by 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 sent to the complainant, containing the invitation to hearing issued on November 27, 2018 was not returned.
Section 38 A (1) of the Act provides that:
Where in any proceeding’s facts are established by or on behalf of a person from which it may be presumed that prohibited conduct has occurred in relation to him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.
In the absence of any presentation of evidence from the complainant, I must find that the Burden of Proof necessitated by Section 38(A) (1) of the Act has not been satisfied.
- Decision
I have concluded my investigation and issue the following decision.
As part of my investigation under Section 25 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 25 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 Stádas Comhionann
Uimh. Chinnidh: DEC-S2019-006
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-152269-ES-14
- 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). Chuir an Gearánach foirm ES1 isteach ar an 27 Meán Fómhair 2014 agus ní bhfuair sé freagairt dó sin.
- Cúlra
Chuir an Gearánach gearán faoi na hAchtanna um Stádas Comhionann 2000-2015 faoi bhráid an Bhinse Chomhionannais 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. Chuir an Gearánach foirm ES 3 isteach, agus foirm ES1 ag gabháil leis. Ar an 22 Eanáir 2015, cuireadh cóip den ghearán ar fáil don Fhreagróir agus iarradh air ráiteas a chur ar fáil mar fhreagairt air sin. An lá ceannann céanna, iarradh ar an nGearánach soiléiriú cén reachtanna faoina raibh sé ag iarraidh a ghearrán a chur ar aghaidh toisc go raibh a ghearáin comhdaithe aige faoi bhun an Achta um Chomhionannas Fostaíochta agus na nAchtanna um Stádas Comhionann araon.
Ar an 8 Meitheamh 2015, dheimhnigh an Gearánach go raibh sé ag iarraidh leanúint ar aghaidh faoi bhun an dá reachta.
De réir an cumhacht atá aige faoi bhun na nAchtanna um Stádas Comhionann, 2000-2015, rinne an tArd-Stiúrthóir ar an 25 Deireadh Fómhair 2018 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 faoi alt 25 (1) den Acht agus mar chuid den mhionscrúdú atá déanta agam. Thoiligh an Freagróir le teideal na cuideachta a bheith leasaithe ag an éisteacht.
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.
Rinne an Gearánach achoimre ar a chuid gearán ar fhoirm ES 3 agus cóip d’fhoirm ES1 ceangailte léi. Ní dhearna sé aighneacht sa bhreis air sin agus 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. Tá an gearán seo ceangailte le ET -158345-ee-15.
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 siad ullmhaithe chun aighneachtaí an ghearánaigh a phlé 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.
Foráiltear mar a leanas le halt 38 A (1) den Acht:
Más rud é, in aon imeachtaí, go ndéanann duine fíricí a shuiteáil, nó go ndéantar iad a shuiteáil thar a cheann, a bhféadfaí a thoimhde astu go bhfuil idirdhealú gníomhú coiscthe tar éis tarluithe ina leith, is faoin fhreagróir atá sé a mhalairt a chruthú.
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 38 (A) (1) den Acht a shásamh.
- An Cinneadh
Ag seo a leanas, an cinneadh atá déanta agam tar éis don mhionscrúdú a bheith críochnaithe agam.
De réir Alt 25 de na hAchtanna, tá oibligeáid 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 25. 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