Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Darren  Clavin

Center Parcs

Representatives

 Vincent & Beatty Solicitors

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-00035703-002

03/04/2020

The complaint was submitted to the WRC on the 3rd April, 2020. I have noted there were various exchanges between the Complainant and the WRC following submission of the complaint. In that regard, the Complainant informed the WRC that he could not participate in the remote adjudication hearing or face the Respondent due to his concerns about the impact on his mental health. In response the WRC explained the process of adjudication including remotely and informed the Complainant that his representative could speak with him in the course of the adjudication hearing and that he could have a family member or friend in attendance for moral support. The WRC advised the Complainant of the postponement procedures and that if necessary, he could seek a postponement for medical reasons. In addition, the WRC requested the Complainant to clarify how he intended to engage with the adjudication process and to identify his requirements in that regard so that I could evaluate what accommodations could be implemented to allow the case to proceed. The WRC advised the Complainant that documentation from a doctor should be provided in support of his requirements.

I noted that the Complainant did not identify any requirements or special facilities for the purpose of participating in the remote adjudication hearing and nor did he provide any medical evidence in that regard. Furthermore, I checked the file and was satisfied the WRC had issued the Complainant prior written notification of the dates and times of the adjudication hearing and that he was sent the webex details for remote access.

In all the circumstances and having waited approximately ten minutes to start the resumed hearing on the 7th March 2022, I decided to proceed with the adjudication hearing as scheduled.

CA-00035703-002

The Complainant did not attend the adjudication hearing. The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 10/6/2019. On his Complaint Form, the Complainant stated that that he was discriminated against by the Respondent contrary to the Employment Equality Act [1998-2022] and that he believed he was dismissed because of his disability.

CA-00035703-002

At the outset the Respondent raised a preliminary objection pursuant to the provisions of Section 101 of the Employment Equality Act [1998-2022] ie that the Complainant could not pursue a claim for discriminatory dismissal in parallel with a claim for unfair dismissal.

The Respondent stated that it did not dispute that the Complainant suffered from a disability but maintained that it did not discriminate against him on the disability ground. The Respondent stated that the Complainant accepted that when he completed his pre-employment medical questionnaire he did not disclose that he had a disability and that he did not cite disability as a reason to explain his repeated absences from work. 

The Respondent stated that it treated the Complainant fairly at all times and that it made significant efforts to support him throughout his employment. The Respondent stated that its reasons for dismissal were reasonable and unrelated to the Complainant’s disability. In this regard, the Respondent cited the Complainant's previous disciplinary record, the Complainant’s failure to attend work since 23 December 2019, his repeated uncertified and unauthorised absences which the Respondent stated was having an effect on its business and the Complainant's failure to contact management when required and attend meetings, as reasons for his dismissal. The Respondent further stated that in its dismissal letter to the Complainant of the 5th March 2020, the Complainant was offered a right to appeal the dismissal decision but that he declined to do so.

It is the position of the Respondent that it did not discriminate against the Complainant on the disability ground and further that the Complainant had not provided any evidence of harassment or victimisation within the terms of the Employment Equality Act [1998-2022]. In all the circumstances, the Respondent maintained that the Complainant had not established a prima facie case of discrimination.

The Respondent did not adduce any evidence.

A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission from the Complainant on 3/4/2020 alleging contravention of the Employment Equality Act [1998-2022].  The said complaint was referred to me for investigation.  A hearing for that purpose was held on 10/1/22 and 7/3/22 and there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant.  I am satisfied that the said Complainant was properly notified in writing of the date, time and arrangements for the adjudication hearing and that he did not attend.

In the circumstances where the Complainant did not attend the adjudication hearing, and, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been submitted, I must conclude that these complaints are not well-founded and I decide accordingly.

CA-00035703-002

Section 79 of the Employment Equality Act [1998-2022] 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 outlined this complaint is not well founded.

Discrimination, Dismissal