ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00041635
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Michael Welby | Oughterard Enterprises Ltd |
Representatives | Mairead Welby | Ray Flaherty |
Complaint(s):
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-00052196-002 | 10/08/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 17/04/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015,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:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. The complainant and a witness gave their evidence under oath and two witnesses for the respondent gave their evidence under oath and affirmation respectively. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complaint concerns one of discrimination on the basis of disability. At the start of the hearing the complainant and his representative both confirmed that he neither suffered from a disability nor was one imputed to him. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
A number of preliminary matters were raised by the respondent who sought a direction in relation to matters. These related to the unspecified nature of the complaints being made, the reference period encompassed by the complaint, the issues being out of time and that any GDPR complaint was misconceived. In the circumstances of the complainant’s admission at the hearing that the did not have a disability nor was one attributed to him, the respondent made no submission in relation to this matter. |
Findings and Conclusions:
A number of preliminary matters were raised by the respondent. As to the unspecified nature of the complaints, this was queried with the complaint at the outset. He confirmed that he did not have a disability. It was confirmed to the parties that the period under consideration was 6 months prior to lodging the complaint as provided for in the legislation. Additionally, it was indicated to the parties that the adjudicator has no role in relation to disputes regarding GDPR. Section 85A(1) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 – 2015 states as follows: Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a complainant from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination in relation to him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary. Having regard to the complainant’s evidence under oath that he does not suffer from a disability, nor was one attributed to him, I am satisfied that he has not established facts from which it may be presumed that discrimination in accordance with the Act has occurred. Accordingly, I find that the complainant was not discriminated against. |
Decision:
Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.
Having regard to all the written and oral evidence submitted in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complainant was not discriminated against. |
Dated: 21st April 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Employment Equality – no ground for complaint - burden of proof not satisfied – no discrimination |