Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Niall  Buckley

J & J Vision Care

Representatives

Claire Bruton, BL instructed by Michelle Ryan Ronan Daly Jermyn Solicitors

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-00049529-001

06/04/2022

This matter was heard by way of remote hearings pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. 359 of 2020, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. 

At the adjudication hearing, the parties were advised that, in accordance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021, hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public and, in most cases, decisions are no longer anonymised.  The parties are named in the heading of the decision.

Although I am satisfied that the Complainant was on notice of the time and date of the hearing, he did not attend to give evidence in relation to his complaint.    

On the day of the hearing a grace period was allowed to enable the complainant to attend or make contact with the WRC.  When no contact was made with the WRC, within a half an hour of the scheduled start time the hearing was opened.

 No correspondence has been received from the complainant in the intervening period.

The complainant did not attend the hearing.

The respondent was in attendance at the hearing.

A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission by the complainant alleging a breach of the above statute and was referred to me for investigation.

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant at the hearing.

I am satisfied that the complainant was in receipt of the hearing notification which set out the date, time, and place at which the hearing to investigate the complaint would be held.

The respondent advised the hearing that the person named on the claim form as respondent to the within claim was not the complainant’s employer and stated that the complainant had been employed by J & J Vision Care during the relevant time period.  The respondent added that the individual who was named on the claim form as respondent to the within claim was also an employee of by J & J Vision Care who had long since left that employment.    It is common case that complainant had also lodged a separate complaint naming J & J Vision Care as respondent, a hearing on which had been scheduled for an earlier date and at which the complainant also failed to attend.    A separate decision has issued in relation to that matter.    The respondent advised the hearing that the correct respondent to this claim was also J & J Vision Care who was the complainant’s employer during the relevant time period and who was also named in the claim form.     I am satisfied that J & J Vision Care is the correct respondent to this claim and accordingly amend the name of the respondent in the within claim.

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant at the hearing.

The complainant has offered no explanation for his absence.  Accordingly, I find that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination in respect of this claim.

I find that the complainant failed to attend the hearing and thus has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination in respect of this claim.