ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00014577
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Olumide Smith | Legal Aid Board |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00018675-001 | 09/04/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 11/04/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Davnet O'Driscoll
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The Complainant complains that he has been discriminated against, harassed and victimised by the Respondent due to his race and the last act occurred on 23rd January 2018. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was provided with legal services by a branch of the Respondent. The Complainant requested a change of lawyer and centre as he was unhappy with the representation provided. This was denied to him and he appealed the decision, which was confirmed by the Respondent’s Head Office on 22nd January 2018. Prior to this the Complainant lodged harassment complaints against the Respondent and a named employee. The Respondent are providing legal services to the other side in litigation ongoing in which the Complainant is unrepresented. The Complainant is being punished for issuing racial and harassment complaints against the Respondent. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent requests that the complaint is dismissed as frivolous and vexatious and in bad faith. The Respondent says the complaints are causing distress and upset, are unfounded and unwarranted. The Complainant applied for legal services on 23rd October 2017, it subsequently came to light that the Complainant had previously been provided with legal services which were terminated due to unreasonable behaviour. The Complainant never alleged that the decision to refuse legal services amounted to discrimination or harassment, or victimisation. Notice of intention to terminate the legal services was given on 2nd June 2015. Notice was given to show cause why this termination should not proceed, a right of appeal against the decision was given subsequently but the Complainant did not exercise his rights. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have heard the oral evidence of the parties and considered their written submissions regarding the complaint of breach of discrimination, harassment and victimisation in provision of goods, services or facilities under the Equal Status Act 2000. The complaint was referred to me for investigation. The first hearing took place on 1st November 2018. The resumed hearing was rescheduled following the hearing of separate proceedings, and took place on 11th April 2019. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant at the hearing on 11th April 2019. 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. In these circumstances and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me, I must conclude that the within complaint is not well-founded and I decide accordingly.
|
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.
There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant at the hearing on 11th April 2019. In these circumstances and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me, I must conclude that the within complaint is not well-founded and I decide accordingly.
|
Dated: 24/09/19
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Davnet O'Driscoll
Key Words:
Non appearance by Complainant, no evidence, no substantial reason being provided, complaint not well founded. |