ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00031131
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Smaranda Maier | Institute Of Eye Surgery |
Representatives | Self | Deirdre Coady |
Complaints:
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-00040381-001 | 13/10/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00040381-002 | 13/10/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 17/02/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Orla Jones
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, and Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00040381-001 | 13/10/2020 |
Background:
The complainant was employed by the respondent from 19th of March 2019 to 29th of June 2020. The complainant resigned from her employment on the 29th of June 2020. The complainant has submitted two claims the first complaint under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 on the grounds of ‘civil status’ and ‘family status’ in respect of conditions of employment, she has also submitted a claim of harassment. The second complaint was submitted under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977. Both claims were submitted on the 13th of October 2020. The changes arising from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v. Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland, and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 on 6 April 2021 were notified to the parties who proceeded in the knowledge that hearings are to be conducted in public, decisions issuing from the WRC will disclose the parties’ identities and sworn evidence is required. On the 17th of February 2022 I conducted a remote hearing in accordance with the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and Statutory Instrument 359/2020 which designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. Both parties attended the remote hearing and were given an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence relevant to the complaint. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submitted that she was employed by the respondent from 19th of March 2019 and resigned from her employment on the 29th of June 2020. The complainant on 13th of October 2020 submitted claims under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 on the grounds of ‘civil status’ and ‘family status’ in respect of conditions of employment, she has also submitted a claim of harassment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent furnished a written submission in advance of the hearing. The respondent submits that the complainant was employed by the respondent from 19th of March 2019 and submitted her resignation on 29th of June 2020. The respondent submits that the complainant was not discriminated against or harassed on grounds of ‘civil status’ or ‘family status’. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Both parties attended the hearing. The respondent furnished a written submission in advance of the hearing. The complainant at the hearing sought an adjournment on the basis that she was not prepared for the hearing and had only received the respondents submission on the 15th of February 2022. The adjournment was not granted. The hearing noted that the claims submitted by the complainant i.e., claims of discrimination and of constructive dismissal required the complainant to bear the burden of proof. The complainant did not provide a submission in advance of the hearing and advised the hearing that she was not prepared to present her case. The respondent submitted that the claims should be dismissed in the circumstances. The AO clarified that a refusal by the complainant to adduce any evidence or to proceed with her case on the day of the hearing could result in her claims being dismissed. The complainant acknowledged that she understood this. In these circumstances and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me, I must conclude that the complainant in this case has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or harassment on grounds of ‘civil status’ and/or ‘family status’ in respect of her conditions of employment and that the respondent did not discriminate against or harass the complainant . |
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.
In these circumstances and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me, I must conclude that the complainant in this case has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or harassment on grounds of ‘civil status’ and/or ‘family status’ in respect of her conditions of employment and that the respondent did not discriminate against or harass the complainant . |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00040381-002 | 13/10/2020 |
Background:
The complainant was employed by the respondent from 19th of March 2019 as to 29th of June 2020. The complainant resigned from her employment on the 29th of June 2020. The complainant has submitted two claims the first complaint under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 on the grounds of ‘civil status’ and ‘family status’ in respect of conditions of employment, she has also submitted a claim of harassment. The second complaint was submitted under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977. Both claims were submitted on the 13th of October 2020. The changes arising from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v. Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland, and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 on 6 April 2021 were notified to the parties who proceeded in the knowledge that hearings are to be conducted in public, decisions issuing from the WRC will disclose the parties’ identities and sworn evidence is required. On the 17th of February 2022 I conducted a remote hearing in accordance with the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and Statutory Instrument 359/2020 which designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. I gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence relevant to the complaint. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submitted that she was employed by the respondent from 19th of March 2019 and resigned from her employment on the 29th of June 2020. The complainant on 13th of October 2020 submitted a claim of constructive dismissal under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent furnished a written submission in advance of the hearing. The respondent submits that the complainant was employed by the respondent from 19th of March 2019. The complainant was not dismissed but submitted her resignation on 29th of June 2020. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Both parties attended the hearing. The respondent furnished a written submission in advance of the hearing. The complainant at the hearing sought an adjournment on the basis that she was not prepared for the hearing and had only received the respondents submission on the 15th of February 2022. The adjournment was not granted. The hearing noted that the claims submitted by the complainant i.e., claims of discrimination and of constructive dismissal required the complainant to bear the burden of proof. The complainant did not provide a submission in advance of the hearing and advised the hearing that she was not prepared to present her case. The respondent submitted that the claims should be dismissed in the circumstances. The AO clarified that a refusal by the complainant to adduce any evidence or to proceed with her case on the day of the hearing could result in her claims being dismissed. The complainant acknowledged that she understood this. In these circumstances I must conclude that the within complaint is not well founded and that the complainant was not constructively unfairly dismissed. |
Decision:
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
In these circumstances I must conclude that the within complaint is not well founded and that the complainant was not constructively unfairly dismissed. |