ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00030907
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Ade Olanrewaju | Wilton Shopping Centre |
Representatives |
| Jerome O'sullivan J.W. O'Donovan Solicitors |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00041468-001 | 27/10/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/11/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Procedure:
In accordance with 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 concerns an allegation that prohibited conduct occurred when the complainant was parking his car in a disabled car park space. The allegation of discrimination concerns a dispute about whether or not a disabled carpark sticker was visible; when a security guard requested the complainant to move his car out of a marked disabled space, into an adjoining free carpark space. It is also alleged by the complainant that the guard was disrespectful and aggressive towards him. He states that he was left in a state of shock and trauma arising from his interactions with the guard. The strength of feeling about this complaint relates to alleged statements made by the security officer to the effect that the complainant was not disabled; the inference being that he was just trying it on. CCTV footage of the incident was viewed concerning the parking of the car and subsequent interactions between the complainant and the guard. Wilton Shopping Centre was named as a co-respondent. The security officer, who it is alleged engaged in prohibited conduct was employed by Synergy Security Solutions Limited |
Preliminary Matter
At the beginning of the hearing Synergy Security Solutions Limited stated that it would accept full liability from any award arising from the investigation of this complaint and asked that the co-respondent Wilton Shopping Centre be removed as party to this complaint. There was no objection from the complainant to this request.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
See preliminary matter |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
See preliminary matter |
Findings and Conclusions:
Synergy Security Solutions Limited made an application at the commencement of the hearing to remove Wilton Shopping Centre as a co-respondent as they would fully discharge any liability arising from the investigation of the complaint. The complainant did not object to the request and based on agreement between the parties that Synergy Security Solutions would be liable for any award made in favour of the complainant, Wilton Shopping Centre was removed as a co-respondent. |
Decision Preliminary Matter:
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.
Synergy Security Solutions Limited made an application at the commencement of the hearing to remove Wilton Shopping Centre as a co-respondent as they would fully discharge any liability arising from the investigation of the complaint. The complainant did not object to the request and based on agreement between the parties that Synergy Security Solutions Limited would be liable for any award made in favour of the complainant, Wilton Shopping Centre was removed as a co-respondent |
Dated: 12th January 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Key Words:
|