ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00029039
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Adetokunboh Ademola Olanrewaju | Maxol Service Station |
Representatives | Appeared In Person | Lorna Madden BL instructed by Katherina White Solicitor (Agent) and Rice Jones Solicitors |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00038636-001 | 11/06/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 27/05/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000, 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:
On 11 June 2020, the Complainant submitted a complaint of discrimination on grounds of race against the named Respondent in this case. On that date, he submitted 3 pages. 1, 3 and 4 of an ES 1 form alongside details of what appeared to be a request for date under GDPR regulations and tracking details. On 13 July 2020, the Complainant submitted 4 pages from an ES1 form pp 1-4 and details of postage. The claim was notified to the named Respondent on 11 September 2020. There were a number of postponements on both sides in the case. The case was due for hearing in May 2021. The Respondent raised some concern regarding notification of the claim and secured a postponement. At that time the WRC sought access to a “legible “version of the ES1 form directly from the complainant. On 18 May 2021, the Complainant submitted some further handwritten detail which he clarified as “that is an approx. of what is contained in my ES1 form “ The Respondent Solicitor, Ms. Rice wrote to the WRC on 30 July 2021. In this letter. She outlined that the Respondent had tendered CC TV footage to the Gardai of the forecourt accident but had not engaged with either party to the accident. The case came for hearing again on 27 May 2022 following postponements secured.
On 24 May 2022, I wrote to the Complainant prehearing seeking a copy of the ES1 form in the case. I asked that he bring three copies to hearing alongside any documentation on which he sought to rely. I repeated this request a hearing as the documents advanced under that guise were clearly fragmented. I will return to this point in my findings and conclusions. On the hearing day, the complainant presented a summary of a background to the case, which he had submitted in May 2021. He also submitted some detail on the Garda Ombudsman procedure he had engaged. I also wrote to the Respondent on the same date, seeking any documents they wished to rely on in the case. I received a response from the first Solicitors on record in the case. They had attempted to forward the “License Agreement “by email but this was not possible. The email confirmed that, “Term of the license Agreement was set out in paragraph 4.1 dated as 7 March 2020. The license reflected an agreement between Maxol Ltd and Herlihy’s Forecourt ltd They indicated that they were keen to secure the attendance of Garda Mc Carthy at hearing.
The Respondent legal team (Agents) present at hearing did not advance this document and introduced the Respondent as a Licensee in charge of the Service Shop, which was Folio registered.
On the conclusion of the hearing, I wrote to the Parties. On this occasion, I formally requested the notification of the car accident to the Insurance Companies and the status of those reports. This had featured in the Complainant’s evidence. I received a brief response dated 9 June 2020, which was shared with the Respondent, but did not attract a comment in response. I was unable to draw much detail from what the complainant submitted. I also requested that either party provide a record of the date of notification of the penalties to Ms. A. Neither party was able to provide that information. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant outlined his case that he was an Irish Black person who had been involved in a car accident on the forecourt of the Respondent Petrol station. He submitted that the Manager of the Garage provided CC TV footage to the Party involved in the accident, who was white. He said that he had been denied this footage because of his race. He said that he had been treated less favourably than the white lady, involved in the forecourt incident. The Complainant clarified that he was a litigant in person, with some legal training and would have one witness, who was late in attendance at hearing. The topic of the ES1 form continued to be of interest in the case. When asked to demonstrate the ES1 form, the Complainant submitted that it was lodged on 5 May 2020. It consisted of 14 pages and submitted a blended mix of a part ES1 and part WRC complaint form. I then proceeded to explain my jurisdiction under Section 21 of the Equal Status Act Evidence of the Complainant, on oath. The Complainant clarified that the earlier named Representative on record in the case was not attending the hearing and he proceeding as a Litigant in person. The Complainant outlined that on February 25, 2020, while he was present in the Respondent garage forecourt, a white woman reversed and collided with his car at the rear. The lady, Ms A, admitted liability and they exchanged insurance details. Both agreed to contact their respective Insurers for repair of their cars. The Complainant had been attending this Garage for 13 years. The Complainant submitted that both Insurance companies were on notice of the incident. Subsequently, he said Ms A refused to take his phone calls. Three days after the incident, the Insurance Agent for Ms A visited his home. She said that she had inspected the car and seen the CC TV footage. She said that the lady in the other car was ready to accept liability. On 5 March 2020, the Complainant submitted a data access request for the CC TV footage at the Garage but did not receive a response to his request. He was provided with the contact’s name of “Stephen “at head office. He said he spoke with Stephen during 2020, but he had hung up on the phone. The Complainant confirmed that his car was fixed in June 2020.It cost €1,500. He also confirmed that a Personal Injuries claim was in being as a result of the forecourt incident. The Complainant made a Statement under caution with the Gardai. He made a further complaint about this to the Garda Ombudsman, but later withdrew this when he was informed that the lady in the other car had been given a fixed notice and 5 penalty points. He was unable to identify the dateline associated with this withdrawal. He contended that he was purposefully excluded from accessing the CC TV footage due to his race. On 6 April 2020, the complainant told the hearing that he had accused “Mike “(Nick), a Chinese worker at the Garage of his discrimination. He said he was denied the CC TV footage by the garage. This conversation lasted 5 minutes. He recalled that the witness, Timi Olan was on his break at the garage and observed this interaction. The Complainant submitted that he forwarded the ES1 form on April 30 and confirmed postage. The Respondent refused to issue an ES2.Nick told him that he had passed the ES1 to the Manager He said that both the Insurance Agent and Ms A were white. The Complainant went on to set out that he had made a complaint before the Data Protection Commission, which remained live, but he had been informed to await the outcome of the WRC complaint. The Complainant was invited to exhibit any relevant documents in this regard, but none were exhibited. Cross Examination: Counsel for the Respondent asked the Complainant when he had filled out the ES1 form? The Complainant said that he had demanded CC TV footage on 28 February 2022. He was unsure of the ES1 date and referred to 9 March 2020. He added that the Insurance Agent had visited his home and the Insurer had covered the cost of his car repair. The Agent had told him during the month of March that she had seen the cc tv footage. The Complainant confirmed that he had not been provided with a reason on why he could not access the CC TV. The Complainant in response to Counsels questions regarding the data access request, confirmed that he had registered the first application. He subsequently changed this to his having “handed it in “He added that he had registered the second application. The Complainant said that on March 9, he was given a contact number. He confirmed that he had ultimately secured the CC TV footage but in the early aftermath of the incident, the Respondent had aided the Insurance Agent, which gave her more power. The Complainant disputed that the Respondent was not served with ES1 as the Manager had confirmed receipt in April/ May. Mike had opened it and queried it. He said that the Respondent had helped the Insurance Agent, which gave her more power. When asked why he did not keep a copy of the ES1 form? He said that he had handed it over in person and registered the postage. The Complainant confirmed that he had sent ES1 March and April 2020. He confirmed that he went to the Garage on 6 May 2020 and not 6 April. He attributed this date to his statement that he had been denied CC TV footage due to his race. The complainant clarified that he was a Human Rights Activist, and this was the reason that he used the letterhead of African Community Ireland on his submissions under GDPR. Evidence of Mr Timi Olan, on oath Mr Olan introduced himself as the complainant’s brother at first then changed his mind. He said that he was on the forecourt of the garage on his break from work, when the Complainant approached him to witness a conversation. He recalled that the Complainant had asked an Asian staff member if he had received, the documents he had sent in? Mr Olan recorded the conversation, but the complainant told him not to. The Staff member, referred to as “Nick “said the matter was out of his hands and had been given to a supervisor Mr Olan was unsure of the time there, but estimated 25 minutes. A couple of weeks later, Mr Olan offered to send him the record of the conversation. The Complainant requested a hard copy. During cross examination, Mr Olan clarified that he had not provided the complainant with a recording of the conversation. He clarified that the document was “an ES1, or something “as he worked for a large company and knew that an ES1 was associated with General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) Mr Olan confirmed that the conversation occurred on May 6, 2020. He clarified that he was called over during his break. He had not been specifically invited. He did not recollect any mention of discrimination or a Chinese worker at the garage. In his closing statement, I requested the Complainant address the July 2021 letter submitted by the Respondent first in time Solicitors He did not agree with the Respondent position . The Complainant summarised that he had submitted registered mail on 4 specific dates 20 April, 25 May, 13 May and 30 August 2020. He submitted that he had been treated less favourably in his quest for the CC TV footage due to his race. He confirmed that he had 1 or 2 active personal injuries cases but was not able to clarify when these were lodged. The Complainant submitted that he had not received a reply to the ES1. He said that the entire Directive 2000/43/EC applied to his case. He said his evidence was supported by his witness. He acknowledged the presence of the WRC as if “they were not present, I would have been ignored “ I asked the Complainant why he was personally in pursuit of the CC TV footage, when his Insurance company was on notice of the claims? The Complainant responded by saying that he wanted his own data. I asked him if this request was material to the Personal Injuries case and he told me that that cause of action came later I requested a copy of the report made to his Insurance Company in the aftermath of the incident at the forecourt. The Complainant forwarded a response, which was shared with the respondent. When the Complainant was asked to respond to the Respondent final submissions, he declined saying that there was no point in his comments and that it was the Adjudicators decisions now.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent operates a Garage and has denied the claim. of discrimination on grounds of race. The Respondent argued that the Complainant had not complied with the notification requirements in accordance with Section 21 of the Act. It was the Respondent case that an accident had occurred on the garage forecourt on 25 February 2020, which had been captured on CC TV. Gardai had called for the footage on the 7th of March 2020. By the time the complainant had sought the CC TV Footage, it had been deleted and the Complainant was directed towards the Gardai to follow up It was the Respondent case that the case as submitted was misconceived as the provisions outlined in Section 21 of the Act had not been followed. They advanced this point as a preliminary argument.
Evidence of Mr Kevin Herlihy on oath Mr Herlihy is the licensee of the Petrol station and 8 other premises. He took over governance of the business on 6 March 2020. Mr Herlihy was aware that details of the fore court incident were recorded on CC TV and given to the Gardai on 7 March. The records habitually deleted after 10-12 days on the system. He had not retained a record, but his manager told him that the Complainant was informed that the CC TV footage was no longer in existence on 9 March. He said that the complainant was recommended to go to Gardai at that time. This Manager had left he business in April 2020. The Respondent had not retained records of this. Mr Herlihy took issue with the Complainant referring to a worker named “Nick “saying, it was inaccurate. He had not seen the data access requests relied on by the complainant dated 5 and 27 March. He contended these had not been received. He acknowledged sight of the ES1 form via the Head Office in late Summer, 2020. Mr Herlihy submitted that the Equality Policy operational at the business was that all customers were treated equally. The Complainant had not actioned the customer complaints policy. He disputed any allegation of discrimination on race grounds. The information which the Complainant referred to was not on site at the business. During cross examination, Mr Herlihy confirmed his awareness of the complainants seeking cc tv footage on 9 March 2020. Mr Herlihy confirmed that he had not received an ES1 form outside of that exhibited by the Solicitor. Evidence of Garda Mc Carthy on oath Garda Mc Carthy told the hearing that on 4 March 2020, he had taken a cautioned memo from the lady involved in the car incident. He explained that if she was found to be at faulty, she may be prosecuted or cautioned. Ms A told him that the complainant had a passenger in his car. He invited the Complainant to call to the station. the Complainant attended in the company of his wife. He attended the Garage on 7 March 2020 and secured the CC TV footage. The file was forwarded to the DPP, and the Superintendent dealt with all queries thereafter. He said that the CC TV footage was retained for the files and not given to anyone else. Garda Mc Cartht told the hearing that the case ended with a ticket applied top Ms A, plus 5 penalty points, April 2021. During cross examination, Garda Mc Carthy confirmed that the complainant was not accused of wrongdoing. He re-affirmed that the Superintendent addressed any queries in the case. The CC TV footage was retrieved on March 7, 2020. This followed the caution applied to the Complainant on March 4, 2020. The Complainant put to the Garda that he had sent him an ES1 to him at the same time as this case. The Garda replied that the complainant had looked for the cc tv footage but as the complainant was directed at him, all queries were directed at the Superintendent. He confirmed that a later complaint to GSOC had been withdrawn by the complainant. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the case had been aired but there was some lingering uncertainty surrounding the serving of the ES1. It was the Respondent position that it had not been received by the Respondent until late Summer and certainly in the aftermath of the WRC complaint. Counsel argued this was not complaint with Section 21 of the Act. Counsel submitted that Ms A had not received the CC TV footage as it was the Agent who obtained the footage, and she was not a comparator. She contended that the complainant had not satisfied the burden of proof in the case. He had confirmed 6 May as the day he approached the Manager at the Garage, but this seemed to centre on documents in GDPR and not regarding the complainant’s complaint of racial discrimination. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have been requested to conclude an investigation into the complaint received by the WRC on 11 June 2020. I am mindful that the Covid 19 pandemic was well advanced in the country at that point, and this seemed to prompt the complainant to forward further details on 13 July 2020. This complaint was set across a number of documents 1 a 3-page extract of ES1 2 a request for information under GDPR regulations 3 postage tracking information It is important for me to capture that the Complainant recorded that the Respondent was aware of the complaint of discrimination. In addition, he did not seek any special accommodation at hearing. Section 3 of the Act sets out the terms of discrimination Discrimination (general). 3.— (1) For the purposes of this Act discrimination shall be taken to occur— (a) where a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation [on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) or, if appropriate, subsection (3B),] (in this Act referred to as the ‘discriminatory grounds’) which— (i) exists, (ii) existed but no longer exists, (iii) may exist in the future, or (iv) is imputed to the person concerned In this case, the Complainant has relied on the ground of race as provided for in Section 3(2)(h) (2) As between any two persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are: ……….. (h) that they are of different race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins (the “ground of race”), It is the Complainants case that the Respondent treated him less favourably on race grounds when he was refused CC TV footage of an accident on the forecourt of the Garage which occurred on 25 February 2020. This is denied by the Respondent who framed their response that the Gardai secured the CC TV footage, which was then material to a concurrent investigation, which resulted in a penalty on Ms A. During my pursuance of supplementary documents post hearing, the complainant complimented the content of the hearing and mentioned that he had left his hearing aids at home. He did not mention this at hearing. I am satisfied that the Complainant heard the contents of the hearing as he responded to questions asked of him without difficulty, conducted his own case and cross examined two witnesses. In addition, he responded to my requests on where the parties were sitting at hearing and brought Mr Olan forward where both sides could work with him. I am satisfied that the Complainant heard and followed the hearing process. I must decide whether the complainant was discriminated on grounds of his race described as Black, Irish or not. In reaching my decision, I have had regard for all evidence adduced, all written submissions and in particular the foundation document in the case, the ES1 as the gateway to notification of the complaint. I am also mindful that there was some uncertainty expressed from the Respondent in terms of the identity of the Licensee and the date of that transition. I am satisfied that the Respondent is correctly identified by the Complainant in the case. As the Respondent raised the preliminary issue of doubt around the serving of the ES1 notification in the case. I explained to the parties, that I would hear from them on both the preliminary and substantive issue prior to making my decision in the case. Preliminary Issue: Section 21 of the Equal Status Act 2000-2018. This complaint of discrimination under the Equal Status Act is subject to a notification requirement in accordance with Section 21 of the Act. It is important for me to set out the entire provisions of Section 21 to illustrate this point |
Redress in respect of prohibited conduct.
21.— (1) A person who claims that prohibited conduct has been directed against him or her may, subject to this section, seek redress by referring the case to the [Director of the Workplace Relations Commission].
(1A) If the grounds for such a claim as is referred to in subsection (1) arise—
(a) on the gender ground, or
(b) in any other circumstances (including circumstances amounting to victimisation) to which the Gender Goods and Services Directive is relevant,
then, subject to subsections (2) to (7) and (8) to (11), the person making the claim may seek redress by referring the case to the Circuit Court instead of referring the case to the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission] under subsection (1) (and, if the case is referred to the Circuit Court, no further appeal lies, other than an appeal to the High Court on a point of law).]
(2) Before seeking redress under this section, the complainant—
(a) shall, within 2 months after the prohibited conducted is alleged to have occurred, or, where more than one incident of prohibited conduct is alleged to have occurred, within 2 months after the last such occurrence, notify the respondent in writing of—
(i) the nature of the allegation,
(ii) the complainant’s intention, if not satisfied with the respondent’s response to the allegation, to seek redress under this Act,
and
(b) may in that notification, with a view to assisting the complainant in deciding whether to refer the case to the Director of the Workplace Relations Commissionor, as the case may be, the Circuit Court], question the respondent in writing so as to obtain material information and the respondent may, if the respondent so wishes, reply to any such questions.
(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2) the date of notification is the date on which the notification is sent, unless it is shown that the notification was not received by the respondent.]
(3) (a) On application by a complainant the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission] F43[or, as the case may be, the Circuit Court] may—
(i) for reasonable cause, direct that in relation to the complainant subsection (2) shall have effect as if for the reference to 2 months there were substituted a reference to such period not exceeding 4 months as is specified in the direction, or
(ii) exceptionally, where satisfied that it is fair and reasonable in the particular circumstance of the case to do so direct that subsection (2) shall not apply in relation to the complainant to the extent specified in the direction,
and, where such a direction is given, this Part shall have effect accordingly.
(b) In deciding whether to give a direction under paragraph (a)(ii) the Director of the Workplace Relations Commissionor, as the case may be, the Circuit Court] shall have regard to all the relevant circumstances, including—
(i) the extent to which the respondent is, or is likely to be, aware of the circumstances in which the prohibited conduct occurred, and
(ii) the extent of any risk of prejudice to the respondent’s ability to deal adequately with the complaint.]
(4) The Director of the Workplace Relations Commissionor, as the case may be, the Circuit Court shall not investigate a case unless the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission or the Circuit Court, as the case may be, is satisfied either that the respondent has replied to the notification or that at least one month has elapsed after it was sent to the respondent.
(5) The Minister may by regulations prescribe the form to be used by a complainant and respondent for the purposes of subsection (2).
(6) (a) Subject to subsections (3)(a)(ii) and (7), a claim for redress in respect of prohibited conduct may not be referred under this section after the end of the period of 6 months from the date of the occurrence of the prohibited conduct to which the case relates or, as the case may be, the date of its most recent occurrence.
(b) On application by a complainant the Director of the Workplace Relations Commissionor, as the case may be, the Circuit Court may, for reasonable cause, direct that in relation to the complainant paragraph (a) shall have effect as if for the reference to a period of 6 months there were substituted a reference to such period not exceeding 12 months as is specified in the direction; and, where such a direction is given, this Part shall have effect accordingly.
(7) Where a delay by a complainant in referring a case under this Act is due to any misrepresentation by the respondent, subsection (6)(a) shall apply as if the references to the date of occurrence of prohibited conduct were references to the date on which the misrepresentation came to the complainant’s notice.]
(7A) (a) Not later than 42 days from the date of a decision of the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission] on an application by a complainant for an extension of time under subsection (3) or (6), the complainant or respondent may appeal against the decision to the Circuit Court on notice to the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission specifying the grounds of the appeal.]
(b) On the appeal the Court may affirm, quash or vary the decision.
(c) No further appeal lies, other than an appeal to the High Court on a point of law.
(d) Unless otherwise agreed by the complainant and respondent, effect shall not be given to a decision of the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission on such an application until—
(i) the period of 42 days mentioned in paragraph (a) has expired, or
(ii) any appeal against it has been determined,
whichever first occurs.
(8) Information is material information for the purposes of this section if it is—
(a) information as to the respondent’s reasons for doing or omitting to do any relevant act and as to any practices or procedures material to any such act,
(b) information, other than confidential information, about the treatment of other persons who stand in relation to the respondent in the same or a similar position as the complainant, or
(c) other information, which is not confidential information and which, in the circumstances of the case in question, it is reasonable for the complainant to require.
(9) In subsection (8) “confidential information” means any information which relates to a particular individual, which can be identified as so relating and to the disclosure of which that individual does not agree.
(10) This section is without prejudice to the other provisions of this Act relating to the obtaining of information.
(11) For the purposes of this section prohibited conduct occurs—
(a) if the act constituting it extends over a period, at the end of the period,
(b) if it arises by virtue of a provision which operates over a period, throughout the period.]
I must be satisfied that a valid notification of claim exists in this case .as set out in section 21(2) of the Act.
Section 21(4) limits my jurisdiction in that regard.
In my preparation for hearing, I identified an incomplete ES1 form as notification of claim. I wrote to the complainant directly seeking this form and requesting that he bring three copies to hearing. I did this to ensure that the notification complied with the provisions of Section 21(2) as at face value there were clear deficiencies.
The Respondent submitted that they could not decipher the detail on the ES1 sent via the WRC complaint process and augmented this by declaration that they had not received an ES1 during the statutory notification period.
This constituted a dilemma for me.
While I appreciate that an official form can be used, this is not mandatory and can be saved by submission of an ordinary letter, Mongan v Clare County Council DEC S2008-039. However, the provisions of Section 21 (2) must be visible.
In Judy Walsh Equal Status Acts 2000-2011, states:
“The notification must be sent within two month of the alleged discriminatory event and must state the name of the allegation and the complainant’s intention to seek redress under the Acts if not satisfied by any reply received. Both of these criteria are essential.
For example, in Ennis v Navan OMahonys Football and Hurling Club DEC S 2010 -031 a letter in which the complainant stated “will ye do something about this or will I?” but did not mention the Equal Status Act or the Tribunal was not accepted as a valid notification.”
In the instant case, I found a fragmented and thus frail ES1. I found a primary submission of 3 pages of an ES1 on 11 June 2020 followed by a secondary submission of 4 pages on 13 July 2020
These submissions were interspersed by simultaneous complaints under the Data Protection legislation, over which I do not hold jurisdiction, note Olumide Smith and the Office of the Ombudsman and Adam Kearney and Bernard Traynor and Peter Tyndall at the Court of Appeal [2022] IECA 99
I found some tracking details and a receipt of postage dated 29 April 2020.
The notification provides an opportunity for the parties to engage on the claim and to seek to resolve the issue at the heart of the story.
The WRC Administrative section sought to secure a legible ES1 form again in May 2021. On this occasion, I note that the Complainant submitted some handwritten clarification, which I could cross match on both of the ES1 forms presented to me. However, this was again short on the complainants stated intention to refer the case to the WRC
Of note the only reference to referring the issue to a higher authority rested on the complainant declaration that he reserved the right to take legal action in respect of the separate GDPR matter and not the Equal Status Act.
I listened very carefully at hearing when I once again asked either party to present the ES1 form in the case. The Respondent submitted that they only viewed the form in the context of the WRC complaint and not before.
The Complainant submitted a blended bundle of the ES1 4 pages and extract of the WRC complaint form at hearing. I formed the view that he was not familiar with an ES1.
I accept Mr Herlihy’s evidence that he was not on notice of an ES1 form.
I must conclude that I do not have a valid notification before me. I cannot establish that the terms of Section 21(2) were placed before the Respondent in the requisite statutory period, so as to permit the Respondent to address the complainants’ concerns on prohibited conduct.
The Complainant did not make application for reasonable cause, nor did he seek a waiver of notification through section 21(3) I was not met with a submission from him in that regard as he held firmly to the position that he had placed the Respondent on notice of the claim in accordance with the terms of Section 21 of the Act. I respect that the Complainant has a background in legal training.
I listened to both the Complainants evidence and that of Mr Olan in terms of notification of the claim of discrimination prior to the lodging of the claim before the WRC in June 2020. to the WRC
I found a complete inconsistency in the dates both witnesses relied on, and I have to reluctantly conclude that the Complainant got lost in the multiplicity of complaints both active and in contemplation by him from March 2020 onwards.
I found that Mr Olan was not au fait with an ES1 and conflated it with his Industry knowledge of GDPR. Both of these legislations are entirely separate.
I find that I cannot rely on the evidence of either of the witnesses to reassure me that the obligatory notification requirements were complied with.
I have not identified that the Respondent was placed on notice of the claim of prohibited conduct before September 11. I conclude that the Respondent was served with a partial but not complete notification in accordance with the terms of Section 21(2) of the Act.
During this time, the Complainant had raised issues under GDPR, Insurance claims, followed by Personal, Injury claims, and Garda Ombudsman. I believe that he got lost in the various separate and distinct pathways.
It is of note that the Complainant did in fact secure the CC TV footage in the case. This emanated from the Gardai.
I have found that he omitted to comply with the provisions of Section 21(2) of the Equal Status Act on notification which has served to estoppe his claim as I do not hold the jurisdiction to take the matter further.
The claim Is not well founded.
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. I have identified that the obligatory notification as provided for in Section 21(2) of the Act has not been completed by the complainant. I lack the jurisdiction to conclude my investigation. The claim is not well founded. |
Dated: 7th September 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle
Key Words:
Discrimination on race |