Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Thiago  Lima

Computer Training Specialists Dorset College Dublin

Representatives

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000

CA-00050834-001

24/05/2022

The Complainant was a student at the Respondent educational college in 2021.

A dispute arose between the parties over the course of 2021. On the 24th of May 2022 the Complainant submitted a complaint under the Equal Status Act alleging he was discriminated against on the grounds of race, gender, sexual orientation and because of housing assistance.

A hearing was held to consider this matter in on the 12th of May 2023.

The Respondent raised a preliminary issue. They argued that the Complainant had failed to furnish them with a ES1 form at any time before submitting a WRC complaint and as such I had no jurisdiction to consider the matter further.

The Complainant had submitted a ES1 to the WRC following his referral of his Equal Status Act complaint to the WRC.  However, this form was dated the 25th of May 2022, the day after he had submitted this complaint.

The Respondent argued I did not have jurisdiction to hear this matter as they had received no ES1 form from the Complainant at all.

I agreed to adjourn the matter and allow further submissions from both parties. In the hearing I outlined my intention to either call a resumed hearing to consider the matter further or to draft a decision if I was of the view that I did not have jurisdiction to consider the matter further.

The Complainant submitted a number of emails where he challenged the Respondent on what he saw as their unreasonable and unfair behaviour towards him.  

He has submitted proof of postage from November 2021, months before he submitted his WRC Complainants, this shows that he submitted the appropriate forms.

The Respondent argues that they never received an ES1 form of any kind. They respectfully submit that I do not have jurisdiction to consider the matter further.

More generally the Respondent argues that have never discriminated against the Complainant and that they are ready to respond to his allegations, which they say are entirely unfounded.  

Section 21 (2) of the Equal Status Act provides that:

 Before seeking redress under this section the complainant—

(a) shall, within 2 months after the prohibited conducted is alleged to have occurred, or, where more than one incident of prohibited conduct is alleged to have occurred, within 2 months after the last such occurrence, notify the respondent in writing of—

(i) the nature of the allegation,

(ii) the complainant’s intention, if not satisfied with the respondent’s response to the allegation, to seek redress under this Act,

The Respondent disputes ever having received such a notification from the Complainant.

The Complainant has submitted an ES1 form but it is dated the 25th of May 2022, the day after his complaint was submitted. I am of the view that it was indeed drafted on that date as it refers to allegation which were supposed to have occurred on the 23rd of May 2022, two days previous to the date of the ES1 form.

The Complainant has referred to a An Post proof of delivery dated the 25th of November 2021 to the Respondent. However, I am unclear what was sent to the Respondent on that date. There was a lot of communication back and forward between the parties at that time but there is no record of any communication which would meet the requirements outlined in Section 21.2.

As the burden of proof is on the Complainant to prove that such a document existed and that it was sent to the Respondent, and as the Respondent disputes having ever received any such notification, I conclude that the requirement set out in Section 21.2 has not been met by the Complainant.

Section 21. 3(ii) provides that I can exceptionally, where satisfied that it is fair and reasonable in the particular circumstance of the case to do so direct that subsection (2) shall not apply in relation to the complainant to the extent specified in the direction,

However, I see no reasons to treat this case exceptionally.

In the circumstances I am of the view that it would not be appropriate schedule a further hearing into this matter. The Complainant has failed to comply with Section 21.2 before submitting a complaint to the WRC and in the circumstances I am satisfied that I do not have jurisdiction to consider it further.

For the reasons outlined I find that the case is not well founded.

ES1