ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00024738

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	María Quintanilla	Nac Masters Swimming Club

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-00031509-001	10/10/2019
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000	CA-00031510-001	10/10/2019

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 13/01/2020

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000,following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.

Background:

The respondent sports club provides its services to its members on a voluntary basis.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant submitted that both complaints in this matter were duplicates and indicated that there was no difference between the two numbered complaints. The complainant outlined her complaint of discriminatory treatment on the basis of gender, race and disability at the hearing. She asserted that she had posted the Section 21 notification to the respondent within the required timeframe.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent submitted that it had not received the statutory notification required under Section 21 of the Act and accordingly the WRC has no jurisdiction to hear this matter.

Findings and Conclusions:

The respondent submitted that it had not received statutory notification from the complainant as required by Section 21 of the Act. Section 21 of the Act states, inter alia, that

21.-(1) A person who claims that prohibited conduct has been directed against him or her may, subject to this section, seek redress by referring the case to the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission.

(1A) If the grounds for such a claim as is referred to in subsection (1) arise —

(a) on the gender ground, or

(b) in any other circumstances (including circumstances amounting to victimisation) to which the Gender Goods and Services Directive is relevant,

then, subject to subsections (2) to (7) and (8) to (11) , the person making the claim may seek redress by referring the case to the Circuit Court instead of referring the case to the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission under subsection (1) (and, if the case is referred to the Circuit Court, no further appeal lies, other than an appeal to the High Court on a point of law).

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

(a) shall, within 2 months after the prohibited conducted 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,

and

(b) may in that notification, with a view to assisting the complainant in deciding whether to refer the case to the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission or, as the case may be, the Circuit Court, question the respondent in writing so as to obtain material information and the respondent may, if the respondent so wishes, reply to any such questions.

In response stated that she had posted the notification within the appropriate timeframe but had not evidence of posting.

The respondent noted that the complainant in later correspondence (received prior to the hearing) apologised for the late posting of the notification. It was also noted that in relation to a prior complaint a year previously, the respondent had noted the receipt of the Section 21 notification and had responded promptly (within 5 working days). The respondent submitted that this complaint was not properly before the WRC.

Having considered this matter, and the papers and correspondence submitted in relation to this complaint, I am not satisfied that the Section 21 notification was sent to the respondent in accordance with the timeframes laid down in that Section. Accordingly, I find that I have no jurisdiction to hear this matter.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

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.

As I am not satisfied that the Section 21 notification issued in relation to this matter in accordance with the timeframes laid down in the Act, my decision is that I do not have jurisdiction to hear this matter, and the complaint fails.

Dated: 28-01-2020

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes

Key Words:

Equal Status, Section 21 notification.