FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 77 (12), EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS, 1998 TO 2015 PARTIES : APPLE DISTRIBUTION INTERNATIONAL LTD (REPRESENTED BY J W O'DONOVAN SOLICITORS) - AND - BENJAMINAS KRYZANAUSKAS DIVISION : Chairman: Ms O'Donnell Employer Member: Ms Connolly Worker Member: Mr Hall |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer's Decision No. ADJ-00005087
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 77(12) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2015. A Labour Court hearing took place on 11th April, 2019. The following is the Determination of the Court:
DETERMINATION:
This is an appeal by Benjaminas Kryzanauskas (hereafter the Complainant) against an Adjudication Officer’s Decision ADJ-00005087 given under the Employment Equality Act 1998 (the Act) in a claim that he was discriminatory dismissed by his former employer Apple Distribution International Ltd. (hereafter the Respondent). The Adjudication Officer found that the complaint was not well-founded.
Background
The Complainant commenced employment as a Service and Support Administrative Advisor on the 14thSeptember 2015. The Complainant's employment was terminated on the 28thApril 2016 with notice. It is the Complainant’s claim that he was discriminated by the Respondent on the grounds of age and that it was this discrimination that led to his dismissal.
A case management hearing was held on the 7thFebruary 2018. At this hearing the Court set out for the parties the requirement under Court rules to make submissions. On receipt of the relevant submissions from the parties the case was programmed for a hearing on the 11thApril 2019.
In advance of that hearing the Complainant was in frequent correspondence with the Court. In particular the Complainant was seeking to have witness summonses issued initially for two witnesses and then for a third witness. The Court considered the application and based on the information available to it at that time decided not to issue the witness summonses. The Complainant was advised accordingly and wrote to the Court a few days in advance of the hearing to indicate his unhappiness with that decision.
At the commencement of the hearing the Court advised the Complainant that while it had decided not to issue the witness summonses, if in the course of the hearing it became apparent that the Court should hear from these witnesses, the hearing would be adjourned to facilitate the serving of the summonses on the witnesses. The Court went on to set out that in the main the Court only hears witness evidence on facts that are in dispute. The Court requested that the interpreter translate what it had said for the Complainant. The Complainant indicated that he understood what the Court was saying. The Complainant then raised objections to individuals who were either attending on behalf of the Respondent or as witnesses for the Respondent. The Complainant was advised that the hearing was a public hearing however if he had an issue with the number of witnesses in the room the Court could request that the witnesses wait outside until their evidence was required.
The Complainant stated that was not what the issue was. He wanted to object to the Respondent calling them as witnesses as he did not believe it was appropriate. The Complainant then stated he was not prepared to go ahead with the hearing. The Court outlined to the Complainant that the hearing was going to proceed and that if he did not make his appeal his case would fail. The Court requested that the interpreter translate what it had just said for the Complainant. The Complainant confirmed that he understood what the Court was saying but that he was refusing to go ahead. The Court then offered him an opportunity on two occasions to take a break and reflect on how he wanted to proceed. The Complainant declined to take a break and confirmed that he understood what the Court was saying. The Court again advised that if he did not proceed with his appeal that his appeal would fail.
The Complainant repeated that he was not prepared to go ahead with his appeal as the witness summonses had not been issued. The Court reminded the Complainant that this had been addressed at the start of the hearing. The Complainant confirmed to the Court that he was not prepared to go ahead with his appeal. The Court advised that on the basis that he was declining to process his appeal, the appeal must fail. The Court then closed the hearing.
Determination
The Court determines that the Complainant’s appeal fails.
The decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.
The Court so Determines.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Louise O'Donnell
16 April 2019______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.