Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Michael Wall

Clayton Hotel Silversprings Cork

Representatives

No Appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant

Alan Moore, McCullagh Wall Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00022983-001

01/11/2018

This case involves a complaint of discrimination on Traveller Community grounds lodged on 1 November 2018. On 5 November 2018, the WRC raised an issue on the late primary notification of the claim of prohibited conduct and invited submissions of reasons why this had happened.

On 15 November, the complainants Solicitor outlined that the ES1 form had been served on 17 July 2018 without a resultant ES2. The Representative outlined reasons for seeking an extension of time.

The Hearing was scheduled for 30 May 2019 and the WRC permitted a flexible start time to allow for travel to the hearing. On May 24, the Complainants Solicitor came off record.

On May 28, 2019, the parties were granted a postponement of the case on foot of a medical certificate submitted by the complainant. the case was relisted for 27 August.

The Complainant had submitted a written complaint of alleged prohibited conduct on 23 April 2018.He had acknowledged that a late notification to the Respondent had occurred outside the statutory two-month time limit but within the extended four-month limit.

The Complainant contacted the PRU minutes before the commencement of the hearing. I was informed that he would be unable to attend the hearing as he was in Dublin and had been very busy with family matters.

Later that day, the complainant requested a postponement for personal reasons. He submitted a medical certificate dated 27 May 2019.

The Respondent was represented by Solicitors and denied all claims of discrimination. In addition, he submitted that the Premises was a licensed premise and the Respondent argued jurisdiction in the case.

I have considered the circumstances presented in this case. I do not have the benefit of an ES1 or ES2 form in this case. I have not had the benefit for any reasons for delay in furnishing a primary notification.

I am satisfied that the complainant was properly notified of the hearing. I find that the complainants non-appearance at hearing was unreasonable in the circumstances. He had been granted a postponement previously and was aware of the protocol in that regard. He did not exercise a reasonable approach to the hearing of August 27. His medical certificate was 3 months out of date.

Section 21 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 requires a primary notification to the Respondent to validate the claim. The complainant did not attend the hearing scheduled in the case to explain the delay in furnishing these documents. I find that he cannot succeed as he has not satisfied the requirements outlined in Section 21 of the Act, nor has he attended the hearing

I must find that his claim is not well founded.

Decision:

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

I am required to hold an Investigation in this case. I held a hearing where both parties were invited to put forward their submissions. The Complainant did not attend the hearing. I found this approach coupled with lack of primary notification documentation required under Section 21 of the Act to be unreasonable.

The complaint is not well founded.

Alleged Discrimination on grounds of Traveller Community