ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00037371
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Erin Royal | Cineworld Cinemas |
Representatives |
| Rachel Barry Arthur Cox |
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-00048714-001 | 18/02/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 11/05/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
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 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:
The Complainant Is a former employee of the Respondent who submitted a claim of discrimination alleging that they failed to offer her a promotion because her sister was already working in management at the cinema.
The Respondent operates a policy limiting workplace relationships including familial relationships.
The Complainant submitted a complaint under the Employment Equality Acts to the WRC on the 18th of February 2022 alleging discrimination on the basis of family status. A hearing was held via an online platform on the 11th of May 2023 to consider the complaint.
The Respondent attended the hearing represented by Ms Barry of Arthur Cox.
The Complainant failed to attend the hearing.
Having reviewed the file, I am satisfied that the Complainant was on notice of the hearing, specifically she was sent the hearing notification and a number of other emails to the email address she provided the WRC. I note that she had corresponded from the same email address in the past.
The WRC official arranging the hearing attempted to call the Complainant a number of times but she did not pick up.
I waited 30 minutes for the Complainant to arrive and then opened the hearing. I noted her absence and heard brief oral submissions from the Respondent.
I then adjourned the hearing considering the possibility of an emergency or other unforeseeable matter having prevented the Complainant from attending. When after a week the Complainant had made no contact with the WRC, offered any excuse for not attending or made any request for a resumed hearing I proceeded to draft this decision. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend the hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent submits that the complaint is entirely misconceived the Complainant’s complaint does not relate to family status as outlined in the Employment Equality Acts. The Respondent believes the case should be struck out for this and for the complainant’s failure to attend and prosecute her case. |
Findings and Conclusions:
This complaint was referred to me so that I might convene a hearing to examine evidence and arguments presented by the parties and then decide the case on the basis of these. The Complainant who initiated the complaint failed to attend this hearing despite being properly notified of it. In the circumstances I am of the view that I can consider the matter no further and that it must, in the circumstances, fail. |
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.
This complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 31/05/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Key Words:
|