ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION.

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00034573

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Emer McGrath	Mark Malone Today's Express

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties

Representatives

In person

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-00045592-001	09/08/2021

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 29/11/2022

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan

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 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:

This complaint under the Equal Status Act, 2000 was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 9th August 2021.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant provided a verbal summary of the incident of 30th January 2021.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent provided a verbal summary of the incident of 30th January 2021.

Findings and Conclusions:

The complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 9th August 2021. The complainant alleges that on 30th January 2021 the Respondent, a retail store owner discriminated against her in relation to her disability.

The Respondent stated that on the date of 30th January 2021 the country was still in a level 5 lockdown due to the Covid pandemic. All customers entering the shop were required to wear a face covering in line with Government guidelines

The Complainant stated that she was exempt from wearing a mask due to her disability. On the day in question the Complainant wanted to purchase a certain type of bread and that she was aware such bread was sold by the Respondent.

Section 21 (6) (a) of the Equal Status Act, 2000 (as amended) reads as follows:

‘(6)(a) Subject to subsection (3)(a)(ii) and (7), a claim for redress in respect of prohibited conduct may not be referred under this section after the end of the period of 6 months from the date of the occurrence of the prohibited conduct to which the case relates or, as the case may be, the case of its most recent occurrence.

(6)(b) On application by the complainant the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission [or as the case may be, the Circuit Court] may, for reasonable cause, direct that in relation to the complainant paragraph (a) shall have effect as is for the reference to a period of 6 months there were substituted a reference to such period not exceeding 12 months as is specified in the direction; and, where such direction is given, this part shall have effect accordingly’.

I note from the papers that the Complainant, when asked why she was late lodging the complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission, replied that she had made a mistake in thinking that the 6 months’ time limit referred to the date of the ES1 form and not the date of the alleged discrimination.

In relation to the possibility of extending the time limit I have decided that the reason provided by the Complainant is neither unforeseeable or outside her control. I have therefore decided that no extension of time is merited and that the complaint is out of time and accordingly decide that the complaint is not well-founded.

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.

Dated: 12th December 2022

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan

Key Words:

Equal Status Act, 2000.