ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00037401
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Dorin Dusa | Miller Cake Studio & Cafe (Incident At Their Cafe: Unit 4, Marlay Courtyard, Marlay Park, Dublin 14, Co. Dublin) |
Representatives | Sabrina Sullivan | Caoimhe Ruigrok BL Instructed by Rennick Solicitors |
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-00048752-001 | 22/02/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 16/12/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
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:
The Complainant in this matter referred a complaint under the Equal Status Acts to the WRC alleging that he had been harassed as a result of his status as a disabled person by the Respondent and that the Respondent had failed to show him reasonable accommodation. These allegations stem from an incident on the 22nd of October 2021 where the Complainant refused to wear a mask in the Respondent’s coffee shop.
A hearing was scheduled in the matter and the Respondent side attended. The Complainant did not attend.
I called the Complainant on his mobile phone. The Complainant indicated that he would not be attending the hearing as he had no confidence in the WRC and that he considered the WRC to be corrupt. The Complainant stated he wanted to be done with the matter. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend the hearing to make his case. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent made extensive written submissions ahead of the hearing. They outline that on the date in question the Complainant entered their cafe to order a takeaway coffee. He was not wearing a face mask. This was during the Covid-19 pandemic and the wearing of face masks indoors was still mandatory. One of their employees, an 18 year old woman, had asked the Complainant to put on his mask. When he refused the employee offered to bring him his coffee outside. The Complainant became argumentative stating that he was exempt from wearing a mask. The employee felt intimidated and phoned An Garda Siochana. The Respondent is of the view that their employee was entirely professional, offered to serve the employee outside the cafe and in challenging circumstances acquitted herself well. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am satisfied that the Complainant knew about the hearing and still did not attend the hearing. The burden of proof to establish a prima facie case in the matter was on the Complainant. As the Complainant has refused to attend the hearing I am of the view that his claim must fail. |
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.
For the reasons given above I find the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 5th January 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Key Words:
Covid-19, Face Mask, Non-attendance |