Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Pavel Konosonok

Health Service Executive

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

Mark Scanlon J. D Scanlon & Company Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00044041-001

11/05/2021

Section 21 of the Equal Status Act [2000-2018] prescribes that a Complainant 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 the nature of the allegation and the Complainant’s intention, if not satisfied with the Respondent’s response, to seek redress under this Act. From the documentation I noted that the ES1 Form was dated 12/1/2021 and that copy of an An Post Bar-Coded Item Delivery Record dated 14/1/2021 was attached with the documentation together with An Post certificates of posting dated 12/1/2021. Receipt of the ES1 was acknowledged by the WRC on 17/5/2021.  On his Complaint Form to the WRC, the Complainant stated that he did not receive a response from the Respondent to the ES1 Form.

The background to this complaint was the Complainant’s attendance at the A&E Department in the Midlands Regional Hospital, Tullamore, Co. Offaly on 12 and 13 November, 2020.

On his Complaint Form, the Complainant completed the relevant provisions indicating that he had been discriminated by the HSE, on the grounds of disability and “belief”, contrary to the provisions of the Equal Status Act [2000-2018]. The Complainant included additional documentation with his Complainant Form which:

·Expanded on his complaints including stating that he had been the subject of victimisation, harassment, direct and indirect discrimination; and

·Outlined his experience at the Midlands Regional Hospital Tullamore when he arrived at the A&E Department on 12/11/2020 up to the time he left on 13/11/2020 including his complainants about his interactions with various personnel at the hospital, the lack of service and treatment and the matter of delays.  

The Respondent disputed and rejected the complaints and in the course of oral submissions at the adjudication hearing stated:

·        That the Complainant’s medical condition on 12 and 13 November 2020 did not constitute a disability within the terms of the Equal Status Act [2000-2018] and that the Complainant had not specified any disability;

·        That the Complainant had not particularised or made out any facts of discrimination on the disability ground;

·        That the complaints regarding the operation of the triage system by the Midlands Regional Hospital Tullamore were untenable on the basis that it was not a first come first served system but rather based on medical needs;

That the complaint was frivolous and vexatious and based on the Complainant’s dissatisfaction with the level and/or quality of service he had received which is outside the scope of the Equal Status Act [2000-2018].

A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission from the Complainant on the 11th May 2021 alleging various breaches of the Equal Status Act [2000-2018]. The said complaint was referred to me for investigation. A remote adjudication hearing was held on the 27th October, 2022. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant at the hearing. Having checked the file, I satisfied myself that the Complainant had been properly notified by letter of the time and date of the adjudication hearing and had been issued with the necessary Webex link.

In these circumstances and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me, I must conclude that the within complaint is not well-founded and I decide accordingly. 

CA-00044041-001

For the reasons outlined this complaint is not well founded.

Discrimination, Non-Attendance