Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Martin  Devlin

 Daly's Circle K &Spar Store

Representatives

Ciarán O’Rourke B.L. instructed by McElhinney & Associates, Solicitors

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00046309-001

20/09/2021

The complainant entered the respondent’s premises on April 5th, 2021. without a mask, made coffee at a self-servicecoffeemachine,andpresentedhimselfatthetilltomakepayment.

He was asked to put on a face mask and told that one would be provided without charge if he did not have one, but he refused. He was told that it was required by law that customers wear a mask in store unless they showed proof of exemption and that an appropriate pin or badge or a doctor’s letter would be accepted.

He provided no proof of exemption.

The complainant did not attend the hearing.

The respondent was in attendance and made a submission in response to the complaint

The complainant seeks adjudication under section 21 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 of his complaint that he was discriminated against on the basis of disability on April 15th, 2021.

There was no appearance by, or on behalf of the complainant at the hearing.  On the evening before the hearing he contacted the WRC to say that he was ’unwell’ and could not attend. He was advised of the possibility that the matter might be determined in his absence, or that he could apply in person for an adjournment at the hearing.

He was in touch with the WRC the following morning but again failed to offer any supporting evidence beyond a bald assertion that he was ‘sick’.

About a half hour before the hearing a further request was made by email by a solicitor acting on the complainant’s behalf but again without providing any particulars as to the reason why the complainant could not attend the hearing (or indeed why the solicitor could not have attended to explain the position).

No further explanation or supporting medical evidence was provided, including since the hearing as to the complainant’s unfitness to attend.

Noting that he was able to email the WRC and instruct a solicitor on that same morning in the hours before the hearing this casts some doubt over his inability to attend in person (online) at the hearing, if only briefly for the purposes of applying for the postponement.

An application for a postponement, even at short notice will be considered on its merits.

However, an onus falls on the applicant for an adjournment to present what, if any, those merits are, if only as a courtesy to the other parties involved, who may have incurred costs or made arrangements to attend the hearing involving absence from their work places etc.

The respondent was in attendance at the hearing (online) with counsel and witnesses.

On the facts set out above there were insufficient grounds to grant a postponement.

Therefore, I find as follows.

A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission by the complainant alleging breaches of the above statute and was referred to me for investigation.

I am satisfied that the complainant was sent notice in writing to the address provided on the complaint form of the date, time and place at which the hearing to investigate the complaint would be held. 

Having unreasonably failed to avail of the opportunity to present his evidence, I must conclude that the within complaint is not well-founded in the absence of evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me and I decide accordingly.

For the reasons set out above Complaint CA-00046309-001 is not upheld.

No show complainant.