ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00035991

Parties:

Complaint(s):

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  03/11/2022

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Janet Hughes

Procedure:

In accordance withSection 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000,following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I  gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

There are two ADJ references for the one complaint. One-ADJ-00038741 is where the Minister A is the named Respondent and the second - ADJ-00035991 is where Minister B is the named Respondent. In their submission to the WRC, the CSSO/Counsel asserted that the complaints referred to applications for a further education scheme in 2019/20 academic year and there was a separate complaint for the academic year 2020/21 and their submission addressed only the application for the academic year. This is incorrect. The Complainant submitted one complaint and issued one ES1 form. The ES1 document dated contained references to one Minister and two Government Departments. Consequently, two separate files were created by the WRC to allow for discussion/agreement at a hearing or representations as to which was the correct Respondent. To complicate matters further, in their submission in October 2022, the CSSO Counsel named a different ministerial post holder as the person in situ at the time the disputed decisions were made. As it transpired, the hearing did not proceed, and the matter of the correct Ministerial Respondent could not be discussed and clarified. In the absence of such clarification, as the parties were notified of the hearing of two ADJ numbers listed against two different Ministers-this decision is issued in respect of the two ADJ numbers referenced, as notified to the parties in the separate notices of the hearing issued on 19 August 2022.

It is clear from his correspondence, and I believe not disputed by the Respondent Representative, that the Complainant has a profound disability. Given that the hearing of the complaint did not proceed for the reasons set out below and therefore evidence was not taken, I have decided not to name the Complainant at all or the Respondent by name or full title as I see no public interest being served by doing so and declare that the circumstances in this case represent special circumstances for the purpose of Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, as amended.

A hearing of this complaint was first scheduled for 29 July 2022. On the morning of the hearing, the Complainant sent an email for the attention of the Adjudicator, the Respondents, and the Director General. He was critical of both the WRC and the Respondents and referred to a reaction which required medical support. Notwithstanding the fact that no medical certification was provided to support the request for the adjournment as would be required under the postponement procedures followed by the WRC together with the lateness of the request, following consultations between the AO and the Director of Services, the adjournment request was granted in the circumstances. The Respondent representatives did attend for the hearing. They were notified of the decision to grant the adjournment and requested to make a full submission of defence to the complaints.

There followed further correspondence with the parties at various stages including the offer of the choice of an in person hearing at specified locations or a remote hearing. The Complainant opted for the remote hearing. The Complainant sought mediation which the WRC was willing to facilitate, but this was declined by the Respondent/s.

November 3rd, 2022 was set as a second date for the hearing. The Respondent side did not comply with the date set for their detailed submission. That submission was received on October 21st, 2022. On October 28th, the Complainant advised the WRC and the Respondent of a severe reaction by him to the contents of the submission.

On the morning of the second scheduled hearing, the Complainant sent an email to the WRC and the Respondents advising that he would not be attending the hearing and the reasons for his decision. There is a considerable volume of correspondence to and from the Complainant on these files which I see no useful purpose in setting out in detail. Similarly with his email advising of his decision not to attend the second scheduled date. Suffice to say that the Complainant was critical of the WRC, the Respondent and another named Body from whom he had sought assistance. And while I might have a degree of empathy with some of the points made by the Complainant, the place to make his case was at the hearing, whether that was in respect of his own submission of complaint or in responding to the Respondent or in a discussion on procedural matters. As it was, the Complainant made his own decision not to attend the hearing and as is the case with all such occasions where the Complainant is properly notified of a hearing, if s/he decides not to attend to provide evidence and/or to raise procedural issues of fairness, the complaint cannot succeed and a decision to this effect is required. The Respondent Representatives were informed of my decision when they attended for the hearing on November 3rd.

Background:

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

Findings and Conclusions:

Decision:

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

Dated:   10th November 2022.

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Janet Hughes

Key Words: