ADJ-00030159

Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Gerard  Lee

Dublin City Council Culture Company

Complainant

Respondent

 Parties

Gerard Lee

Dublin City of Culture

Representatives

  self

Lisa Conroy Peninsula Group Limited

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 86 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00040069-001

25/09/2020

At the hearing held on the 9th of February 2022 on the face of the complaint form there was no prima facie facts relied upon to ground a complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1999 as amended.  The respondent stated they did not know what case was being made against them. The complainant who was unrepresented was asked to seek advice from FLAC or to seek independent legal advice and was asked to resubmit their claim. A scanned complaint form was forwarded to the Workplace Relations Commission on the 29th of March 2022. That form was also unclear concerning what complaint was being pursued. The Adjudication Officer wrote to the complainant on the 4th of May 2022:

Dear Mr Lee,

I am not able to prepare for the case as the details on your complaint form are not clear concerning what wrong has occurred and what Act you rely upon for bringing a claim. At the last day of hearing, your complaint was not made properly under the Equality Act and unless I hear from you within 2 weeks from the date of this letter with relevant detail, I will proceed to make a preliminary decision based on the complaint as originally submitted.

Yours sincerely,

The complainant replied on the 6th of May 2022 as follows:

May 6th, 2022

Dear Michael,

Thank you for your letter of 4th May regarding my complaint against Dublin City Council Culture Company.

Can I say at this point that I accept full responsibility for selecting the wrong area of complaint heading in my initial form, and for the confusion that has arisen as a result.

With a view to correcting my error, since our adjourned adjudication in March I have sought advice from FLAC, Community Law Agency and the WRCs own Support Line, with a view to  re-presenting my complaint under the correct heading.

However, none of the organisations listed above were able to give me clear guidance on how to proceed. So I made a number of attempts to amend the heading on my original complaint form, and to focus on one aspect only of my complaint – that Dublin City Council Culture Company had changed the terms of my contract without my consent. I was then advised by the WRC that these submissions could not be read or opened, although the file suggested they might be read with an Adobe Reader. I’m not technically skilled, however, so I then printed out the amended form and posted it, in hopes that this might resolve the problem. Your letter of 4th suggests that this also failed to fix the problem.

I appreciate that your offices are extremely busy and that your time is valuable, and I sincerely regret the confusion and time spent by staff trying to unravel the matter. I write this letter only by way of explanation, that I would like you to know that I have made genuine efforts to address the complications, and do not wish to waste anybody’s time.

Therefore, please proceed as you see fit at this time.

Kind regards

Gerard Lee 

See preliminary decision

See preliminary decision

See preliminary decision

The complainant has not clearly stated what statute he relies upon to bring his complaint. The amended complaint concerning the amendment of his contract for services unilaterally does provide sufficient detail so that the respondent knows what allegation they are required to respond to and under what statute. A breach of contract may or may not have occurred; however, that is not a matter properly before me. The complainant has sought independent legal advice, and this has not assisted the complainant to ground his complaint more concisely and to detail under what statutory provision does he rely upon. It is not up to this body to provide legal advice and the obligation to be impartial must be maintained. In the absence of clarity about what the complaint is about and what statutory provision is being relied upon, it is not possible for the respondent to know what case they must answer. In these circumstances Section 79(3A) of the Employment Equality Act provides that:

(3A) If, in a case which is referred to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77, a question arises relating to the entitlement of any party to bring or contest proceedings under that section, including:

(a) whether the complainant has complied with the statutory requirements relating to such referrals,

(b) whether the discrimination or victimisation concerned occurred on or after 18 October 1999,

(c) whether the complainant is an employee, or

(d) any other related question of law or fact,

The Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission may direct that the question be investigated as a preliminary issue and shall proceed accordingly.

The complainant has failed to present any facts that would ground his complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1998 as amended. In these circumstances it is not possible for the respondent to know what case they must answer. As no prima facie case has been made to support a claim under the Act, I dismiss the complaint and determine that the complainant was not discriminated against.

No case to answer