ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00027900
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Minor | A School Board of Management |
Representatives |
| Christine West JMB |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00035798-001 | 21/04/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/12/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
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:
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 respondent representative and two witnesses for the respondent attended the hearing. Twenty-five minutes were allowed for the complainant to attend the hearing or otherwise make contact with the WRC, however there was no attendance on the part of the complainant. No evidence was presented to me in support of this claim. Hearing notification letters issued both parties on 7 November 2022, and the remote hearing invitation issued to the complainant on 8 December 2022, consequently I am satisfied that the parties are on notice. They have offered no explanation for their absence. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant did not attend the hearing of this matter. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent attended the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
38A(1) of the Equal Status Act, 2000 states as follows: (1) Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a person from which it may be presumed that prohibited conduct has occurred in relation to him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary. The complainant did not attend the hearing of this matter and as a result I find they have not established facts from which prohibited conduct may be inferred. |
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.
Having regard to written and oral submissions in relation to this matter, my decision is that the respondent did not engage in prohibited conduct. |
Dated: 4th January 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Equal Status Act – non-attendance at hearing – no prohibited conduct established. |