Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Ron  Vos

Canning’s Spar

Representatives

  No appearance

Carol Ballantyne  of Murphy Ballantyne Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000

CA-00048509-001

07/02/2022

This complaint of discrimination, brought under the Equal Status Acts, arises from a request by the Respondent that the Complainant wear a face covering in their retail premises on 9 December 2021.

There was no appearance by the Complainant at the Adjudication hearing on 13 September 2022.

The Respondent owns a retail business.

The Respondent denies the complaint of discrimination in full.

The Respondent’s request that customers wear a face covering while attending their retail premises in December 2021 was made during an acute period of the Covid 19 pandemic and was requested in compliance with the mandatory legal requirements in place at that time.

In so requesting the Respondent was not only complying with what was required of them legally, they were also seeking to protect the health and safety of their customers and staff while providing an essential retail service to the public. Their retail business was a front-line service.

As the Complainant failed to attend the Adjudication hearing on 13 September 2022, he has not discharged the onus of proof to prove that he was discriminated against.

On this basis, the Respondent seeks that the complaint be dismissed.

The WRC put both parties on notice in writing on 11 July 2022 that the Adjudication hearing would take place on 13 September 2022 at a specified venue and a specified time.

The Complainant failed to attend the hearing on 13 September 2022.

As Adjudicator, I permitted a reasonable period of time to ensure the Complainant was not travel-delayed and thereafter I took steps to ascertain if the Complainant had requested an adjournment prior to commencement of the hearing, which he had not.

On the basis that there was no attendance at the Adjudication hearing, I find that the Complainant has failed to discharge the onus of proof that an act of discrimination occurred on 9 December 2021.

I wish to note that the Respondent fully engaged with the complaint brought by the Complainant and instructed a legal representative who prepared a robust defence in advance of the hearing. The Respondent’s solicitor attended the Adjudication hearing alongside the Respondent witnesses.  I note that the Respondent went to considerable expense to meet the complaint and I wish to observe that, at all times, the Respondent cooperated with and met all that was required by the WRC Adjudication process. The Respondent has been inconvenienced by the Complainant not informing them (or the WRC) that he would not be attending the Adjudication hearing. I note that the Complainant remains a customer of the Respondent, attending the shop regularly including in the days immediately prior to the Adjudication and as such had any number of opportunities to inform the Respondent of his intention not to attend the hearing, but he chose not to.

I find that this complaint is not well founded.

This complaint is not well founded

Face coverings – Covid 19 – retail premises – Equal Status