ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00044247
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Jean Wilfried Akossi | Intel |
Representatives | Non-attendance | MP Guinness, B.L., instructed by Eversheds Suterland |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 81E of the Pensions Act, 1990 as amended by the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004 | CA-00054918-001 | 07/02/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 24/07/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or 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 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 complainant did not attend the hearing of this matter, the respondent attended. Although the compliant form indicated that the complainant was seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 81E of the Pensions Act, 1990 as amended by the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004, the accompanying narrative indicated that the complaint was being taken under the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015. In the circumstances, I have decided to consider this complaint under the Employment Equality Act, this issue was clarified to the respondent during the hearing. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant did not attend the hearing of this matter. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent attended the hearing of this matter and submitted that the complainant was not an employee. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complaint was aware of the hearing and was contacted by the hearing concierge at the start of the hearing. He was informed that he should join the hearing. Despite being given 15 minutes to do so and a follow-up call being made, the complainant did not attend the hearing of this matter, no evidence was presented to me in support of this claim. I am satisfied that the complainant is on notice but has offered no explanation for their absence. Section 85A(1) of the Employment Equality Act deals with the burden of proof and states that “Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a complainant from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination in relation to him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary”. In the circumstances of the hearing, the complainant has not established facts from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination in relation to him of her. Accordingly, I find that the complaint is not well founded and concluded that the complainant was not discriminated against. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
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.
Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complainant was not discriminated against. |
Dated: 25-07-2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Employment Equality – non-attendance – compliant not well founded – not discriminated against. |