ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00027484
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Ferenc Borbas | Siptu Local Union |
Representatives | Self represented | William Jolley, Bowler Geraghty Sols |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00031146-001 | 24/09/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 25/08/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015following 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 submitted a number of complaints against SIPTU. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submitted a number of ES1 forms in relation to the Equal Status Act 2000 and a complaint form in relation to the Employment Equality Act 1998. He contends that he and his fellow workers have been unfairly treated by their Union and have been prevented from rescinding their membership of the union. The Complainant made a number of allegations alleging unfair and unconstitutional treatment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent submits that this case is entirely misconceived. In the first instance, the complaint under the Employment Equality Act cannot be entertained as SIPTU is not the employer. In the second instance, if the Complainant is making a complaint under the Equal Status Act 2000, no ES1 forms were received by the Respondent. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00031146-001 Employment Equality Act 1998 The only case before me under the above reference CA-00031146-001 is under the Employment Equality Act 1998 which cites the Respondent as “SIPTU Local Union”. The Act prohibits discrimination by an employer in relation to access to employment, conditions of employment, training, promotion or regrading and classification of posts. In this instant case as the Respondent is not the employer of the Complainant, the complaint is misconceived and is not well founded. For completeness, in relation to the Equal Status Act 2000, Section 21 of that Act makes it mandatory to serve an ES1 form on the entity or individual deemed to have discriminated against the individual or individuals. In this instant case, there are ES1 forms on file received by the Workplace Relations Commission from 2019. However, no evidence has been presented that the Respondent was served with any ES1 forms which is a requirement under the Act. |
Decision:
I have decided that as the Respondent is not the employer of the Complainant, the complaint is misconceived and is not well founded.
|
Dated: 13th October 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Key Words:
Employment Equality Act 1998, Respondent not the employer. Complaint not well founded. |