ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00039199
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Mary Ann Collins | Rolestown House Hotel Limited Kettle's Country House Hotel |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Mary Ann Collins | Rolestown House Hotel Limited |
Representatives | Sinead Lucey Free Legal Advice Centres (FLAC) | Karl Howe HBMO Solicitors LLP |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00050696-001 | 18/05/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 11/07/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
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 complaint relates to alleged discrimination on the grounds of race and being a member of the Travelling community. It is alleged that the Respondent engaged in prohibited conduct by refusing a booking for a communion.
The Respondent attended at the hearing and was ready to rebut the complaint. |
PRELIMINARY MATTER
Solicitor for the Complainant requested a postponement of the hearing as her client was also required to attend at another hearing at the Circuit Court.
The Respondent objected to the application as the Complainant would have been on notice several weeks in advance of the Circuit Court Hearing date.
Solicitor for the Complainant accepted that her client had been notified on time of this hearing.
In these circumstances the Adjudicator decided not to grant a postponement as the Complainant should have contacted the Commission on time to inform them of the conflict in dates. That would have allowed a postponement and other parties to avail of the date that would become available. A hearing was now arranged. The Respondent was in attendance. A late application must provide good reason for granting a postponement and the omission of the Complainant to act on time and failure to contact the Commission in good time when he was on notice of the other hearing many weeks before this date, is not a sufficient reason to grant a postponement. I determine that a postponement should not be provided to the Complainant.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant failed to attend, and no case was made out to support the allegations made against the Respondent |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent was in attendance and ready to present their case. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant failed to attend, and no case has been made out. In these circumstances the Respondent has no case to answer. The Complainant was notified of the time, place and date of the hearing several weeks before the actual hearing date. As the Complainant has failed to attend I dismiss the complaint. |
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.
I determine that the Respondent did not engage in prohibited conduct as alleged and dismiss the complaint as no case has been made out against the Respondent. |
Dated: 17-July-2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Key Words:
No show |