ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00037813
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Complainant | A Transport Provider |
Representatives | Self-Represented | John Sheridan |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00043221-001 | 19/03/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 01/03/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000following 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 took the oath at the start of the hearing, the two witnesses for the respondent took the affirmation. Having regard to the circumstances of this complaint, where the complainant alleges the existence of a hidden disability, I am satisfied that this complaint falls within the special circumstances requiring anonymisation of this decision. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant sought an adjournment at the start of the hearing and provided a medical certificate which indicated that he was unfit for work for the period of 13 – 17 February 2023 in support of his request. He also provided a letter indicating that he had an appointment with a neurologist on 7 April 2023. When the adjudicator indicated that he was not granting the adjournment, the complainant refused to proffer any oral evidence in support of his claim on the basis that it was a danger to his health. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent attended the hearing of this matter. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant sought an adjournment of the hearing of this matter at the start of the hearing. He provided two documents in support of his contention that he could not proceed with the hearing of this matter - a medical certificate which indicated that he was unfit for work for the period of 13 – 17 February 2023 and a letter indicating that he had an appointment with a neurologist on 7 April 2023. The documentation failed to detail a medical condition, and furthermore failed to show a causal connection between attendance and any medical condition. An adjournment application is subject to an ‘exceptional circumstances and substantial reasons’ test. Having considered the documentary evidence in support of the adjournment request, the adjudicator did not consider that the complainant had established exceptional circumstances, nor had he provided substantial reasons why the case could not proceed. In the circumstances the adjudicator denied the application for an adjournment and proceeded to hear the complaint. Despite repeated requests to do so, the complainant refused to take part in the hearing and refused to provide any oral testimony on the basis that it was a danger to him. Accordingly, the complainant did not proffer any oral evidence in support of his complaint. Section 38A(1) of the Equal Status Act, 2000 states as follows in relation to the burden of proof: Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a person from which it may be presumed that prohibited conduct has occurred in relation to him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary. The complainant refused to proceed with the hearing of this matter. Having regard to Section 38A(1), the burden of proof was not shifted and the complainant has not established facts from which it may be presumed that prohibited conduct has occurred in relation to him. Therefore, there was no evidence to support a finding that the alleged conduct occurred. |
Decision:
Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act.
Having regard to the circumstances of this case, my decision is that the burden of proof was not shifted and there was no evidence to support a finding that prohibited conduct occurred. |
Dated: 02/03/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Equal Status Act – refusal to proceed – burden of proof – no evidence to support a finding of prohibited conduct |