Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Mark J. Savage

Fingal County Council

Representatives

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00022431-001

04/10/2018

The complainant alleges that he was discriminated against on the grounds of his religion and victimised by servants and/or agents of Fingal County Council. He states that on 5 May 2018 at a public event, as he was manifesting his religious beliefs as an Evangelical Christian, a steward employed and/or contracted by the respondent continuously pestered, beset and tried preventing him from handing out pro-life pamphlets in a public place which he asserts constitutes as manifesting his religious beliefs as an Evangelical Christian.

The complainant states that the matter of the two month deadline for sending “ES 1 Notification” to the respondent is accounted for by reason that in the aftermath of the conduct by the respondent towards him, the complainant suffered severe mental anguish which is ongoing.

The respondent rejects the allegations of the complainant relating to discrimination and victimisation and has no knowledge of the steward referred to in the complainant’s claim. The respondent submits that the within complaint is vexatious and misconceived and requests that the complainant be held liable for its legal costs in defending said claim.

Section 21 (2) of the Acts provide as follows

“(2) Before seeking redress under this section, the complainant-

(a)    shall, within 2 months after the prohibited conduct is alleged to have occurred, or where more than one incident of prohibited conduct is alleged to have occurred, within 2 months after the last such occurrence, notify the respondent in writing of (i) the nature of the allegation, (ii) the complainant’s intention, if not satisfied with the respondent’s response to the allegation, to seek redress under this Act…”

With regard to the instant matter, the complainant alleges that the incident of discrimination took place on 5 May 2018, however the complainant only notified the respondent 4 months later on 4 September 2018. The complainant has argued reasonable cause in order to extend the time for notification to 4 months on the basis that he has suffered and continues to suffer ”mental and emotional distress and anxiety”. However, the complainant has not provided any supporting documentation to corroborate this statement.   I am cognisant of the application by the Labour Court of the Cementation Skanska test (“reasons which both explain the delay and afford an excuse for the delay“) in the case of Hewlett Packard Ireland Ltd. v Zajaczkowski DWT 191. I am mindful of the fact that the complainant is a serial litigant and has taken many cases to this forum and to the Circuit Courts under the Equal Status legislation. Having carefully considered the matter, I find that I have no jurisdiction to deal with the instant complaint as the complainant has not established reasonable cause to extend the notification period to four months. Accordingly, the complaint is out of time and therefore statute barred.

I find that the complainant has failed to notify the respondent within the required time limits set out in section 21(2) of the Acts. I find that reasonable cause has not been established in order to extend the notification period. Therefore, I have no jurisdiction to investigate the complaint.

No jurisdiction