Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Vinicius  Lima Leon

The Lawrence

Representatives

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-00047212-004

17/11/2021

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 did not attend the hearing of this matter.

The complainant gave his evidence under affirmation with the assistance of an interpreter.  No written submissions were made in relation to this complaint by either party save a short initial submission from the complainant.

The complainant submitted that the respondent did not pay him the same rate of pay as other chefs.  He stated that he knew how much others were paid and that he was not paid the same rate.

The complainant stated that he was there as a student but that no one was teaching him and that he was just working in the kitchen.  He stated that he began working in early August 2021 but that he finished up after a few weeks.

The respondent did not attend the hearing of this matter.

Section 85A of the Employment equality Act, 1998 requires a complainant to establish facts of such significance that raise the inference or presumption of discrimination.

In line with the well-established Labour Court authorities of Mitchell v Southern Health Board [2001] ELR 201 and Valpeters v Melbury Developments [2010] ELR 64, what constitutes something of such significance to raise an inference of discrimination varies according to the relevant factual matrix in each case. If the relevant facts are within the exclusive knowledge or near-exclusive knowledge of the respondent, then the inference or presumption is quickly raised; it falls on the respondent to show that there was no breach of the principle of equal treatment. A complainant’s ‘mere assertions’ will not raise an inference of discrimination where there are relevant facts which the complainant can be expected to ascertain.

In the current case, the complainant has asserted that he was not paid as much as other chefs who worked for the respondent.  He has not supplied any documentation to establish his employment with the respondent or to establish that any other person who might have been employed with the respondent was receiving a different level of salary.  The complainant was vague when providing information regarding other employees of the respondent and was also vague as to the dates when he employed with the respondent.

Having considered the written and oral evidence provided in relation to this matter, I am not satisfied that the complainant has raised anything other than mere assertions in relation to his complaint.  I find that the complainant has not established facts from which discrimination may be inferred and find that the complaint is not well founded, and accordingly, he has not established that he was discriminated against.

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this matter, my decision is that the complainant has not established that he was discriminated against.

Employment Equality Act - Burden of Proof – mere assertion - not well founded – discrimination not established