Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Female Citizen

A Solicitor

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000

CA-00020505-001

05/07/2018

The Complainant submitted a letter of complaint to the WRC, which was received on 5 July 2018. The Complainant submitted that she and her unnamed child had been subjected to a series of discriminatory actions from the Respondent and had experienced repeated victimisation on grounds of disability, Housing Assistance Grounds, Family, Gender, Eastern European, Family and for vigilance.

The Complainant referred to an unnamed child whom she described as having an Intellectual Disability and Special Needs.

The WRC established that the application was incomplete and sought assurances surrounding details of just when the ES1 form was sent to the Respondent. This request was not heeded by the complainant.

The Complainant went on to submit an extensive written submission and sought that her case be disposed of by that means alone.

The Respondent came on record on 16 April 2019 and denied that he had ever provided a service to the complainant and clarified that the complainant had been a Tenant of a Client of the Business. He sought clarifications on the accusations against him.

The Complainant wrote to the WRC on 23 April 2019 indicating that she intended to press on in her case.

Concerned at the absence of detail surrounding the presence of the ES1, the obligatory precursor to Equal Status Cases, I wrote to the Complainant on 23 April,2019 seeking the same details on the ES1 sought earlier by the WRC. I did not receive a response.

I prepared for the hearing in this case and on the morning of the hearing, the sole attendee was the Respondent. I was satisfied that the Complainant had been sufficiently notified of the details and location of the hearing. I allowed a 20-minute interval to allow for her late arrival. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant at hearing. There was no subsequent contact between her and the WRC.

The Complainant submitted that she had experienced Discrimination, Harassment, Victimisation and a denial of reasonable accommodation during an accommodation issue which appears to have travelled through the Circuit and High Courts.

The Complainant submitted that her grounds of complaint were based on disability, indirect and associative, family status, nationality, being of Eastern European origin and vigilant.

She wrote that the Respondent had acted for her Landlord in Court proceedings and this had affected her, causing her to have to borrow money for furniture.

The Complainant did not submit an ES1 form and did not rely on WRC Complaint forms.

The Complainant submitted that her written submissions constituted evidence and sought that this be taken as her case. She did not respond to clarifications sought on the interface of the ES1 form with this complaint.

She did not attend the hearing or send any reason for this non-appearance.

The Respondent is a Solicitor attached to a Legal Practice. He requested that the decision in the case be anonymised and went on to make oral submissions in the case.

He explained that he had not provided any service to the complainant. Instead, he had acted for the complainants former Landlord, an elderly frail gentleman who had sought to take back his rental property for his own use. The matter was addressed by the Residential Tenancies Board, which found in his client’s favour. This was ignored by the complainant in the case and necessitated Bailiff involvement to redeem the house for his clients use. The Complainant initiated a chronology of litigations through the Circuit and High Courts, which were resolved in his client’s favour with costs.

The Complainant had not made an appearance at any of these fora, just as she had not appeared for WRC hearing.

The Respondent submitted that he strongly contested any claim of discrimination as he had not received an ES1 and he had not provided any goods or services to the complainant. He argued that there was no jurisdiction to progress the case and explained that he had been very upset about the unfair charges against him. He wished to put on the record that as he had merely acted for his client and when he became aware of the imminent Bailiff involvement, he contacted the Council Housing Department to flag that this family may need support.

The Respondent contended that the complainant had erred in” shooting the messenger “and reflected that no reciprocal action had been directed at the RTB, or the Judges in the Higher Courts, all whose judgements had been ignored by the complainant, up to and including unpaid orders of costs in favour of his client.

The Respondent submitted that he had been targeted by over 300 emails from the complainant in the circumstances case followed by demands for money. He reaffirmed that he had never spoken with or even met the complainant and had never provided her with goods or services.

The Respondent asked that the case be dismissed on frivolous and vexatious grounds

I have investigated this complaint which was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission on 5 July 2018, alleging that the Respondent had contravened the provisions of the Equal Status Act in relation to her.

This complaint was referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose was held on 16 May 2019. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant at the hearing. I am satisfied that the said complainant was informed in writing of the date, time and place at which the hearing to investigate the complaint would be held.

To ground a complaint under Equal Status Legislation, the complainant is obliged to act in accordance with Section 21 of the Act which provides for an obligatory prior notification to the Respondent in the case outlining the details of the alleged incident and a stated intention to refer the complaint to the WRC if unhappy with the reply. Validity of the complaint is dependent on this action.

The WRC has published a concise and clear guide dated September 2017 for both Complainant and Respondent in this regard. It is freely available, and I brought a copy of each to the Hearing, ready to share with the parties.

In this case, The WRC sought details early on in this complaint. I followed this up directly with the complainant during my investigation. I did not receive sight of the ES1 form or a notification which complied with Section 21 of the Act. The Respondent had no recollection of being notified in this vein. I must conclude that the complaint is invalid without this key precursor.

In these circumstances and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me, I must conclude that I do not hold the jurisdiction to decide on this complaint.

Decision:

Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act.

The Complainant did not appear to make out her case . I have not received sight of the Section 21 notification which is an obligatory precursor to a claim under the Equal Status Acts.

I dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction to decide on the complaint.

Discrimination, Victimisation, Reasonable accommodation, Harassment