ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00034258
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Eliza Pardo | Copper Niti Limited |
Complaint(s):
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-00045246-001 | 17/07/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00045246-002 | 17/07/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 28/07/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Davnet O'Driscoll
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015,following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
The Complainant was a Dental Nurse with the Respondent from 20th January 2020 until 9th April 2021. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant alleges discrimination, victimisation, harassment and sexual harassment by her employer on the grounds of her gender, and race. The Complainant is a Mexican qualified dentist and agreed to take a lesser role in order to improve her English. She was subjected to lewd comments by her superior, a heavy workload, criticism of her English and performance in comparison to another female Irish member of staff. This created a hostile, offensive and intimidating working atmosphere which violated her dignity at work. Following leaving the Respondent she obtained another role which was withdrawn after 5 weeks as they sought someone with better references. The Complainant has obtained other jobs which have been withdrawn as a result of the Respondents conduct. The Complainant is being victimised as a result of making complaints of discrimination and threatening litigation against the Respondent. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent strongly denies the allegations and says there is no basis for the complaint. The Respondent operated bubbles and has witnesses to evidence compliance with Covid-19 regulations. The Complainant made lewd statements, and used foul language. No complaint regarding these allegations was ever made by the Complainant. The Respondent complied with working time regulations and breaks. The Complainant resigned on 9th March 2021 and did not raise any of the allegations contained in her complaint. There is no evidence to support these allegations. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00045246-001 As part of my investigation under Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015, a hearing was held on 26th July 2022. I am satisfied that the Complainant was notified of the arrangements for the hearing. The Complainant did not attend the hearing. She was given the opportunity after the hearing to provide grounds for non-appearance, but none were provided. I find the Complainant’s failure to attend such a hearing was unreasonable in the circumstances. As no evidence was given by the Complainant in support of her allegations of discrimination, her case fails. CA-00045246-002 As there was no appearance by the Complainant at the hearing, I find her complaint is not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints 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.
CA-00045246-001 I find the Complainant’s case fails. CA-00045246-002 The complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 08-06-2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Davnet O'Driscoll
Key Words:
Non-appearance at hearing, no reasonable grounds |