ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00031081
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Nandini Nirsimloo | Bright Side Bars Ltd t/a Cinnamon |
Representatives |
| Fiona Egan of Peninsula Group Limited |
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-00041270-001 | 26/11/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/03/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Hugh Lonsdale
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015, 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:
A hearing of this complaint was scheduled for 8 March 2022 and both parties were informed of this by email sent on 31 January 2022. The complainant sent an email to the WRC on 3 March 2022 stating she was abroad and requested a postponement of the hearing. The complainant was informed by email on 4 March 2022 that to formally request a postponement she had to follow the postponement guidelines; which would involve sending full reasons for the postponement request to a specific email address which deals with such requests. The complainant did not send such a request, so no decision was made with regard to a postponement before the hearing. She did not attend the remote hearing on 8 March 2022 so a member of staff of the WRC contacted her by phone. She advised she was abroad and was not in a position to proceed. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Did not attend |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent and their representative were in attendance and prepared to proceed. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complaint was referred to me for investigation and a hearing for that purpose took place on 8 March 2022. The complainant was not present but I am satisfied she was informed of the hearing. She made a postponement request and, because she submitted insufficient information, was asked to make it formally, with full details, to the correct email address. This procedure was also clearly set out in the hearing letter. Remote hearings allow parties to take part in a hearing from anywhere in the world and the complainant would have been expected to give good reasons why she could not attend the hearing. These she did not provide. As she did not attend the hearing the complainant was unable to give direct evidence to pursue her complaint. In the absence of direct evidence I conclude the complaint is not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.
For the reasons given above I find the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 14-03-22
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Hugh Lonsdale
Key Words:
Non-attendance |