DEC-E2019-002

EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS

DECISION NO. DEC-E2019-002

PARTIES

Ann Aziz

AND

David Jones, John Smith, Ballarat Clothing Ltd

File reference: EE/2011/751

Date of issue: 22nd January 2019

HEADNOTES: Employment Equality Acts – Age-Gender– Conditions of Employment

1. 1. DISPUTE
      1. This dispute concerns a claim by Ms Ann Aziz that she was discriminated against by the respondent on the grounds of gender and age contrary to section 6 of the Employment Equality Acts in relation to conditions of employment in terms of section 8 of those Acts. 
      2. The complainant referred a claim to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on November 4th, 2011 under the Employment Equality Acts. On October 16th, 2018 in accordance with his powersunder section 75 of the Employment Equality Acts, the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission referred the case to me, Pat Brady an Adjudication Officer/Equality Officer for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director (General) under Part VII of the Acts, on which date my investigation commenced. Submissions were received from both sides. In accordance with Section 79(1) of the Employment Equality Acts and as part of my investigation I proceeded to a hearing on November 27th, 2018. 
      3. 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 83 (3) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015. 
   2.  BACKGROUND

• 1. The complainant had been employed in a retail outlet, but her employment had been terminated after a short period. 

            3. COMPLAINANT’S CASE

• 1. The complainant did not attend the hearing which had been scheduled for November 27th, 2018.
  2. The complainant’s representative (her mother) corresponded with the WRC on a number of occasions prior to the hearing, raising objections as to why it should not proceed. 
  3. The first of these, on November 5th, 2018 outlined a number of detailed objections none of which could be regarded as providing an acceptable basis for postponing the hearing. There was a delay in responding to this email as it was sent only to the Adjudication Officer (who understood he had received a copy only) and not to the Pre-Registration Unit (PRU) of the WRC which deals with such matters in advance of a hearing. A further email was received on behalf of the complainant on November 21st. 
  4. The PRU replied stating that the grounds advanced for a postponement did not constitute sufficient reason to do so and confirming that the hearing would proceed as scheduled. 
  5. A further email was received from the complainant’s representative on November 21st seeking a postponement sine die so that she might take legal advice on a range of issues, none of which related to the specific complaint scheduled for hearing and all of which fell outside any reasonable criteria which would justify a postponement, especially having regard to the very long delays in processing the case to date. 
  6. Further email correspondence was received on November 23rd, again seeking a postponement, as the complainant wished to have a ‘Government investigation’ into various matters associated with the case. 

         4.  RESPONDENT’S CASE

• 1. The respondent did not attend. (IBEC, which formerly represented Ballarat Clothing Ltd, but no longer does so as it says the company was dissolved in November 2017, attended on a without prejudice basis and out of courtesy to the WRC.) 

            5.  FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE ADJUDICATION OFFICER

• 1. I find as follows. A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission by the complainant alleging breaches of the Employment Equality Acts. The said complaint was referred to me for investigation. 
  2. There was no appearance by, or on behalf of the complainant for the hearing. 
  3. I am fully satisfied that the said complainant was sent notice in writing to the address provided on the complaint form of the date, time and place at which the hearing to investigate the complaint would be held and this was confirmed by her correspondence to the WRC. 

         4.DECISION

1. I have investigated the above complaint and make the following decision in accordance with section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts and section 41 (5) (a) (iii) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015. 
2. 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
3.  As no evidence was given at the hearing in support of the allegations of discrimination, I conclude the investigation and find against the complainant.

    4.  The complaint is not upheld, and it is dismissed.

____________________

Pat Brady

Adjudication Officer/Equality Officer

22nd January 2019