Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Food & Beverage Associate

A Hotel

Representatives

Heather MacDonald IBEC

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-00048555-002

08/02/2022

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-00048555-003

08/02/2022

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

CA-00048555-004

08/02/2022

The within claim was submitted by the Complainant, a Food & Beverage Associate against his employer, a Hotel.    The Complainant alleges that he was discriminated against when he was harassed on the ground of race in breach of the terms of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015.     The complainant also submitted a dispute under the Industrial Relations Act and this is dealt with under a separate Adj.

The complaint was submitted on 8th of February 2022 thus the cognisable 6-month period of the claim dates from 9th of August 2021.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00048555-002

08/02/2022

The Complainant commenced employment in the position of a Food & Beverage Associate in the Food & Beverage Department on 26 August 2019.

The complainant submits that he was discriminated against on grounds of his race when he was harassed by a work colleague.    The complainant is a Brazilian National.

The complainant submits that on the 18/11/2021, the supervisor DL told the complainant while both were at work that the DL was COVID positive.   The complainant submits that he was in shock and after discussing the matter with two other colleagues he decided to inform HR.  When approached by HR DL alleged that the complainant had misunderstood, which HR decided to believe.   The complainant was asked to keep it private, and he did as request.

On the 19/11/2021 the complainant submits that DL told another staff member AG that the complainant was spreading rumours about him having COVID.

The complainant submits that on the 20/11/2021 around 07:00 am, when the complainant arrived in the kitchen, he was verbally attacked by the chef CG, who accused him of being COVID affected.

The complainant submits that CG called him names and said that he is not a man.   The complainant submits that he left the kitchen to get away from CG and on his way to the elevator he heard his supervisor DL trying to stop CG from going after the complainant

The complainant submits that he was at the corridor downstairs when CG reached him and continued to harass him.   The complainant submits that CG mocked him with a towel on his face and told the complainant that he was not in Brazil now.  The complainant submits that CG told him to go back to Brazil and that the complainant had better watch over his shoulder.  The complainant submits that he kept asking CG to leave him alone as he was afraid of him, but CG instead followed him to the changing room and continued humiliating him.

The complainant submits that CG followed him inside the changing room where he kept humiliating him.  He stated that no one came after them to make sure the complainant was okay and that it wouldn't escalate to something worse. The complainant submits that he was terrified that it would get physical and afterwards went to Security F and A and told them what happened. He submits that they checked the CCTV footage and said it had all been registered in the video which they would give to HR.   The complainant submits that the incident happened at the weekend and so there was no one in HR office for him to report the matter to at the time.

The complainant submits that he reported the matter to HR on the 21/11/2021 and sent a medical certificate up to the date 02/01/2022 for anxiety and stress.  He was not paid during this period.

On the 08/12/2021 he received meeting minutes of a meeting between HR and CG which he states were all lies.  An investigation was carried out by DK the outcome of which was a conclusion that both the complainant and CG had failed to follow the dignity at work policy.

The complainant appealed this outcome to NL and on 17/12/20211 he had a meeting with NL and Ms. H (HR manager) to discuss the grievance and watch the CCTV footage.

The complainant submits that he was disappointed to find that the CCTV being relied upon for the investigation consisted of only two 24 second videos that were cut.   He submits that he requested to see the full video footage but was shown the same videos again (this time without time stamps).  The complainant’s appeal was not upheld.

It is submitted that following the investigation Ms.H promised the complainant that he could change shifts, go to a different department, or be transferred to any other property so he would not have to have any contact with CG, but this did not happen.

On 21/12/2021 the complainant received the minutes of the meeting which contained statements which were out of context and incorrect.  On the 03/01/2022 he returned to work and was again put working with CG.

He was also told by the Restaurant Manager Mr. G that he was to talk to CG and wish him ‘good morning’ on his arrival (Mr. G insisted on this for 3 days).

 On the 19/01/2022 the complainant submits that he made a genuine mistake while closing a check, and on the next day which was his day off the restaurant manager Mr. G called him 4 times to discuss the issue and was quite rude because the complainant didn't answer his calls straight away on his day off.  The complainant submits that this was a genuine mistake where he had misunderstood that an amount left by a customer was a tip and so he divided it out among the staff.  It later emerged that part of this money was to pay the customers bill and so the complainant repaid the amount out of his own pocket as it was his mistake.

The complainant submits that Mr. G then gave the complainant a ‘Note a File' for something that had happened 6 months before, he submits that Mr. G started to single him out and control his every move in the hotel including timing his breaks including how long he spent in the toilet.  He stated that Mr. G complained about his speed and about his hair (he said the complainant wasn't in construction work or in a night club to have this kind of hair), about the way the complainant would stand using words which have should have no space in a professional setting.

The complainant submits that Mr. G would give out to him for every little thing asking him to tie his hair back when people with similar hair were allowed to have it free. He also told the complainant that he did things that a 9-year-old wouldn’t do.

The complainant submits that he has been humiliated and unjustly discriminated against and is still being treated unfairly by his co-workers and superiors.  The complainant submits that this is clear workplace harassment, with negligible intervention from the responsible parties.

The Complainant had made a verbal complaint to HR Manager, Ms. H on 18 November 2021 where he claimed that a colleague who was working with him Mr. DL had told him that he had Covid-19 but continued to attend work. The Complainant had already relayed the details of this conversation to two other staff members.

Ms. H had followed up with the Complainant later that day to explain that she had spoken to DL and stated that there seemed to be a misunderstanding; that DL had not told the Complainant that he had Covid-19 and also that DL was aware of the regulations around testing and self-isolation.

 The Complainant had left early for the day following the conversation with Ms. H as he was upset about the alleged Covid-19 case in the hotel.   Later that day, the Complainant sent Ms. H an email regarding his conversation with DL    The Complainant attended work on 19 November. The Complainant also attended work on 20 November where an incident took place in the main kitchen between the complainant and CG.

Following the incident, the Complainant left work early and did not show up for work on 21 November 2021.  On 21 November 2021 the Complaint sent an email to Ms. H HR manager which detailed events that had occurred on the previous Thursday 18 November 2021 including the events surrounding the conversation with DL; his subsequent reporting to HR; and the response from Ms. H.

The respondent submits that the Complainant described confronting DL in the kitchen when he started work on 19 November 2021 and asking about their conversation the previous day. The Complainant stated that himself and DL had then shaken hands on 19 November 2021 following their conversation. The Complaint also described an incident that took place between himself and a chef CG on the morning of Saturday 20 November 2021.

 On 21 November 2021 the Complainant submitted a Medical Cert in which he was certified as sick from 20 November 2021 until 6 December 2021, due to anxiety and stress.

On 23 November 2021 Ms. H emailed the Complainant following his complaint, and in this email, she re-iterated their previous discussion on the Covid19; her investigation of his verbal complaint; and the hotels policy on same.  Ms. H explained that there had been a delay in the Complainant coming to HR as he had waited until after his break

 The hotel has a comprehensive policy in relation to Covid-19 which has been communicated to all employees.   As the Complainant was now on sick leave, Ms. H clarified whether he wished to go ahead with the investigation of his Complaint or wait until his return.  The Complainant responded on 23 November 2021 that he wished to go ahead with the complaint against CG.

 The hotel has a Bullying & Harassment policy in place, as well as Grievance policies which are communicated to all employees when they start. Additionally, the Complainant also received updated policies and confirmed understanding of them on 14 December 2020.  Operations Manager (DK) was appointed as Investigator. During the investigation, DK reviewed witness statements from (GV), who the complainant spoke to after the incident with CG given on 3 December 2021, Night Manager, (AM) and statements from CG and the complainant.

 DK also interviewed CG on 1 December 2021.  As the complainant was on sick leave and he did not wish to attend a meeting with CG (in line with stage 1 of the Grievance procedure), Ms. H advised that the Investigation would proceed in his absence (in line with the complainant’s email on 23 November 2021).

Following the investigation, DK issued a report on 6 December 2021 which found that bullying did not occur (within the definition of bullying in the Bullying & Harassment procedure), but that both employees violated each other's right to dignity at work. It was recommended that both employees are counselled and under-go further training on Dignity at work; and that HR meet with the employees within 2 weeks of the report being issued.

 On 6 December 2021, the complainant sent in another Medical Cert. in which he was certified as sick from 6 December 2021 to 2 January 2022. On 8 December 2021 Ms. H emailed the results of the investigation to the complainant along with all supporting documentation. Ms. H further advised that the results of the investigation could be appealed to General Manager (NL). On 14 December 2021, the complainant sent an email to NL to appeal the findings of the investigation. An appeal hearing was scheduled for 7 December 2021, chaired by NL, with Ms. H as note-taker On 21 December 2021 Ms. H emailed the notes from the appeal to the complainant and advised him to come back with any notes or comments. On 26 December 2021 the complainant replied to say that the notes were out of context and incorrect.  He also requested more CCTV footage.    As part of the appeal, statements were provided by (VB) on 22 December 2021 and (ASM) on 23 December 2021 (these employees were named as witnesses by the Complainant during the appeal hearing)

21 On 28 December 2021, Ms. H responded to the complainant and advises that he should make any notes on the appeal minutes. She further advises that the minutes would not be edited, but his additions would form part of the final report, 30 December 2021, the complainant Ms. H to request to view additional CCTV clips, he also advised that he is considering an offer to move to a different MHL property. However, he queried whether his length of service, pay, and holidays would remain the same.  

On 4 January 2022 Ms. H emailed the complainant to request that he provide her with any additions that he wishes to add to the appeal notes. She also advised that he could view the CCTV on Wednesday of that week. Ms. H advises the complainant that if he wished to apply for a transfer, this was a possibility if a role came up at another hotel.

One of the reasons for this was due to the complainant stating that he felt uncomfortable working with CG Ms. H expressed the hope that the complainant’s grievance would be resolved, and he would stay in the current hotel.   Unfortunately, later that day the complainant emailed to advise that he is a close contact, so must self-isolate, and therefore, he cannot view the CCTV at this time

NL heard the complainants appeal on 20 January 2022, in which he upheld the decision and recommendations made by DK.    NL also made several other recommendations following his review of the investigation and subsequent meetings with all parties to the grievance. NL issued his decision to the complainant on 21 January 2022.    Following the issuing of the appeal findings, Ms. H wrote to both employees to clarify the hotels Dignity at work policy. Ms. H also offered both employees a meeting with HR (CG completed this meeting, however, the complainant stated that he would await the WRC hearing (he had submitted a complaint on 8 February 2022).  

The Complaint form raises allegations regarding his manager, Mr. G, which were not previously raised by the Complainant with the respondent.

Following the receipt of the Complaint form, Ms. H raised these allegations with the complainant on 31 st March 2022. However, on 6 April 2022, the complainant responded that he didn't wish to engage with HR or any other senior managers and would await the WRC hearing.

On 20 January 2022, the complainant’s manager, Mr. G, communicated with him in regard to cash that was missing from the hotel.    The complainant (having been responsible for the customer) was involved in this investigation.  On 24 January 2022 a 'note to file' was issued by Mr. G to the complainant regarding his time-keeping - this was an ongoing issue there were a number of instances where the Claimant had stopped working before, he clocked out.  As part of the hotel’s performance management process, a note to file is issued before a formal disciplinary process. However, the complainant refused to sign the note.

The Complainant is alleging that he was harassed on the grounds of race, the Claimant is a Brazilian national.

 The Respondent submits that it has fully investigated the Complainant's bullying allegation in line with their Grievance and Dignity at Work Procedures and in compliance with the Code of Practice Harassment and Sexual Harassment at Work.

 The Respondent rejects the allegations of the Complainant in their entirety and submits that no evidence of bullying and/ or harassment has been demonstrated and that full and proper procedures have been adhered to.

 Without prejudice, Section 14 (A) 2 of the Employment Equality Act 1998 states " ... (2) If harassment or sexual harassment of the victim by a person other than his or her employer would, but for this subsection, be regarded as discrimination by the employer under subsection (1), it is a defence for the employer to prove that the employer took such steps as are reasonably practicable

 (a) i11 a case where subsection (1)(a) applies (whether or not subsection (1)(b) also applies), to prevent the person from harassing or sexually harassing the victim or any class of persons which includes tire victim, and (b) in a case where subsection (1)(b) applies, to prevent tl1e victim from being treated differently in the workplace or otherwise in the course of the victim's employment and, if and so Jar as any such treatment has occurred, to reverse its effects."

The Labour Court has stated in Limerick City Council v Martin Mannering EDA 1210 that" the focus should be on whether or not the Respondent had in place adequate policies and procedures intended to make all employees aware that harassment on any of the discriminatory grounds is unacceptable and will not be tolerated by the Respondent".

The Respondent submits that it takes any allegations of harassment very seriously and has comprehensive policies on Bullying & Harassment in place. These policies apply equally to all staff. The Complainant was provided with a copy of these policies on commencement of employment, and again on 14 December 2020.

It is respectfully submitted by the Respondent that the Complainant has provided no evidence of less favourable treatment on the basis of race.

The issue for decision by me now is whether or not the respondent discriminated against the complainant on grounds of race, in terms of section 6 and contrary to section 8 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 to 2015 and whether he was harassed on grounds of his race.

In reaching my Decision I have taken into account all of the submissions, oral and written, made to me in the course of my investigation as well as the evidence at the Hearing.

Section 6(1) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 to 2008 provides that discrimination shall be taken to occur where “a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) …..”

Section 6(2) (h) of the Acts defines the discriminatory ground of race as follows – “as between any two persons that ..(h) that they are of different race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins (in this Act referred to as “the ground of race”), 

Section 85A of the Employment Equality Acts sets out the burden of proof which applies in a claim of discrimination.   It requires the complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination. If she succeeds in doing so, then, and only then, is it for the respondent to prove the contrary.   The Labour Court elaborated on the interpretation of section 85A in Melbury v. Valpeters EDA/0917 where it stated that section 85A: “places the burden of establishing the primary facts fairly and squarely on the Complainant and the language of this provision admits of no exceptions to that evidential rule”.

Harassment

Harassment is defined in Section 14A (7) of the Acts as any form of unwanted conduct related to any of the discriminatory grounds which has the purpose or effect of violating a person's dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the person. Such unwanted conduct may consist of acts, requests, spoken words, gestures or the production, display or circulation of written words, pictures, or other material.

 Section 14A (2) provides a defence for an employer if it can prove that it took reasonably practicable steps to prevent the person from harassing the victim, or any class of person which includes the victim, and to prevent the victim from being treated differently in the workplace, and, if and so far as any such treatment has occurred, to reverse its effects [my emphasis].

The complainant advised the hearing that he is a Brazilian National.

He submitted that he was subjected to discrimination when he was harassed by colleagues on the ground of race during his employment by the respondent.  The complainant in outlining his claim referred to an incident where a staff member CG had on one occasion verbally abused him in the Kitchen and had then followed him out of the kitchen down to the changing room to taunt him again while making references to his race.  The complainant advised the hearing that during this incident another staff member had tried to physically grab CG to hold him back and stop him from following the complainant but was unable to stop him.

The complainant stated that he was terrified and upset when CG followed him and stated that CG had caught up with him outside of the changing room and had started shouting at him and taunting him and told him to ‘go back to his own country’ he also stated that CG told him that he was not welcome here and told him ‘you are not in Brazil now’. 

The complainant stated that CG had put a tea towel across his face and danced in front of the complainant taunting him. 

Both parties agreed that the incident involving CG had been the subject of a complaint to the respondent and that the respondent findings in the matter was that both employees had violated each other’s dignity.

The respondent in its submissions to the hearing had stated that the CCTV did not support the complainant’s version of events.

The complainant advised the hearing that CCTV footage would support his version of events, but he stated that the relevant CCTV had not been viewed closely or utilised in the respondent’s investigation or appeal process.   All of the CCTV footage was provided to the hearing and upon close inspection it did support the complainant’s version of events.   

Regarding the complainant’s assertion that DG had tried to hold back CG form from going after the complainant the respondent in presenting its case had stated that the witness statements obtained did not support the complainant’s version of events.   On viewing the CCTV at the hearing, it was evident to the hearing that DG did try to hold back CG as asserted by the complainant.

The respondent when questioned at the hearing as to whether or not DG had been asked about his attempt to hold back CG stated that DG was not asked about this as it was not relevant.

In addition, the respondent in its submissions seems to be confusing two issues which the complainant outlined very clearly at the hearing. 

The complainant at the hearing outlined the background to the incident which took place in November.   He advised the hearing that he had raised an issue with HR when a colleague DG had told him that he had Covid while they were both at work.  The complainant advised the hearing that he had asked DG why he was at work if he had Covid and DG had replied that he had no choice as he needed the money.   The complainant stated that he was concerned about working with someone who had Covid as he himself was considered high risk due to suffering from bronchitis.

The complainant stated that the respondent had come back to him stating that he was mistaken in this assertion and that DG did not have Covid.  The complainant stated that the next day another staff member CG who works as a chef, had attacked the complainant in the Kitchen and had referred to the fact that the complainant had raised an issue with HR in respect of DG stating that he had come to work with Covid.  The complainant stated that he and DG had put the matter behind them, but that CG had an issue with it even though the matter did not concern him.   The complainant advised the hearing that CG harassed him on grounds of his race telling him he was not in Brazil now and also telling the complainant to ‘go back to Brazil’.  

The respondent advised the hearing that it has a very diverse workforce with individual from many different countries working together.  The respondent at the hearing sought to assert that all staff receive diversity and equality training, but the complainant advised the hearing that in his 4 years working there he had never received any diversity or racial awareness training.  The respondent did not produce any documentary evidence of such training having taken place.  

The complainant agreed with the respondent assertion that it has a very diverse workforce, but the complainant stated that racist jokes and comments are common at the hotel.  He added that he himself had often complained of such matters to his supervisor who had advised that he would deal with the matter, but nothing was done.

The respondent stated that the complainant had not submitted any complaints to HR in respect of these matters apart from the incidents involving DG and later CG which the respondent states it had investigated and dealt with. 

The complainant stated that he was subjected to comments about his appearance and about his long hair he stated that staff members threatened to turn him upside down and use him as a brush and that he was told that his hair was unhygienic.  The complainant stated that this was not a genuine concern for the respondent as he stated that he ties up his hair when serving customers or while working.  The complainant stated that he was told on one occasion that he could not even walk through the kitchen due to hygiene concerns about his hair.    No evidence was adduced to suggest that these additional matters were the subject of complaints to the respondent HR, however both parties agree that the incidents with DG firstly and later CG were brought to the respondent’s attention and was the subject of a complaint.

The complainant at the hearing appeared genuine and consistent in his evidence.  In contrast the staff member against whom the allegations of harassment were levelled was not in attendance at the hearing and no reason was proffered by the respondent for his non-attendance.

The respondent advised the hearing that its investigation into the November incident was carried out by Operations Manager, DK but it emerged at the hearing that some witness statements were taken by Ms. H not DK and the reason provided for this was that DK was new and some staff felt more comfortable dealing with MS. H.  In addition, a key witness was not asked to provide a statement at the investigation stage as she allegedly didn’t want to be involved.

The complainant advised the hearing that he was interviewed by the respondent and minutes of that meeting were sent to him.  The complainant stated that the minutes were not an accurate reflection of the meeting and made him look stupid.  He stated that he had provided amendments to the meeting minutes but was told they would not amend the report but would be shown as his additions.   

It also emerged at the hearing that some witnesses were interviewed, and others were just asked to write their account of what happened and hand it in.

Mr. DG whom the complainant had seen on CCTV trying to grab CG to stop him from following the complainant was not asked about this in the investigation.  It emerged that Mr. DG was not interviewed in respect of the matter.  The respondent advised the hearing that DG was not involved in the investigation of this incident and was only asked about the allegation in respect of him attending work with COVID.    Ms. H advised the hearing that DG s statement did not form part of the investigation.  However, it is clear form the complainant’s evidence and from the CCTV video footage showing DG trying to stop CG that DG was a crucial and vital witness to the incident involving the complainant and CG.

When asked at the hearing if he had seen the CCTV footage of CG dancing in front of the complainant DK stated, ‘No to be honest’.

The respondent advised the hearing that DK was appointed as the investigator, but there was some confusion over whether some witnesses were interviewed by DK or Ms. H.  There was also some confusion over whether or not CG had been interviewed by Ms. H or whether he had written a statement and handed it in.  Ms. H advised the hearing that CG had come to her to make a statement but that she had told him to write a statement.   NL also advised the hearing that CG had written a statement and given it to Ms. H

In addition, it emerged at the hearing that additional statements were available to the appeals officer which had not been considered by the investigator.  When asked at the hearing how this came about Appeals officer NL stated that he could not recall.  He added that he could not recall whether he had asked for them or whether Ms. H the HR manager had asked for them and given them to him.

The complainant advised the hearing that CG was very aggressive and stated that he had been terrified that CG was going to get physical with him when he had followed him from the kitchen.  The complainant stated that other staff were aware that CG had gone after him when he left the kitchen, and no one tried to help him apart from DG’s attempt to grab CG in the kitchen. 

The complainant at the hearing stated that DG must have thought something bad was going to happen to say he made some attempt to stop CG from going after the complainant.

Accordingly, on balance of probabilities I prefer the complainant’s version of events in relation to these matters and having examined the totality of the evidence adduced I am satisfied that the complainant in this case has raised a prima case of harassment on grounds of his race.  

 The respondent in this matter seeks to rely on the Section 14A (2) defence and submits that they conducted a thorough investigation and appeal process into the complaints of harassment made by the complainant. 

A respondent seeking to rely on this defence must show that they have in place a policy which has been effectively communicated to employees, together with appropriate training, fair and impartial investigation procedures, an appeals process, and access to relevant supports for the employee.

 It is clear from the totality of the evidence adduced that the respondent in this case does have a procedure in place for investigating such incidents.     However, it is also clear from the totality of the evidence adduced that the investigation into the complainant’s grievance and the appeal procedures applied were flawed and were not applied fairly and consistently.  It is clear that all relevant CCTV was not looked at or not looked at in detail and that witnesses were not interviewed but some were just asked to write an account of what happened and hand it in without being asked specific questions or without having the complainants account put to them.  It is also clear that relevant questions were not put to witnesses.

As I have set out above there are many deficiencies in the respondents handling of the complaint and in the subsequent investigation and appeal.  I therefore find the respondent cannot avail of the defence set out in section 14A.

I am thus satisfied from the totality of the evidence adduced that the respondent in this case cannot avail of the Section 14A (2) defence as the respondent has not shown that it took “reasonably practicable steps to prevent the harassment (of the complainant) and to reverse its effects”. Accordingly, I am satisfied from the totality of the evidence adduced that the complainant was harassed on grounds of race contrary to Section 14A of the Acts.

In making my award, I must ensure that the award is effective, proportionate, and dissuasive.   I am satisfied from the totality of the evidence adduced in this case that the complainant was subjected to harassment and that such harassment was connected to his race. 

 I note that the complainant raised other issues at the hearing however I also note that the respondent was not given an opportunity to deal with those matters as the complainant chose to wait for those matters to be dealt with by the WRC.   In making my award I also note that while CG did make a number of references to the complainants race the incident appears to have arisen from the complainant’s complaint to HR in respect of DG attending work with Covid and CGs reaction to same.   

I am satisfied that the respondent in this case once notified of the harassment failed to take reasonably practicable steps to prevent the harassment (of the complainant) and to reverse its effects”.   Having regard to all of the circumstances of the instant case, I consider an award of compensation in the sum of €5,000 to be just and equitable in the present case.  

In accordance with my powers under section 82 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2015 I hereby order that the respondent pay the complainant that sum by way of compensation for the distress suffered by him as a result of the Harassment.   This award is not in the form of remuneration and is therefore not subject to the PAYE/PRSI Code.

I am satisfied from the totality of the evidence adduced that the complainant was harassed on grounds of race contrary to Section 14A of the Acts. 

 I am also satisfied that the respondent in this case once notified of the harassment failed to take reasonably practicable steps to prevent the harassment (of the complainant) and to reverse its effects”.  

Having regard to all of the circumstances of the instant case, I consider an award of compensation in the sum of €5,000 to be just and equitable in the present case.  

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-00048555-003

08/02/2022

The complainant advised the hearing that he had ticked this box in error and withdrew the claim at the hearing.

The respondent advised the hearing that it did not operate a pension scheme and queried why a complaint was lodged in this regard.

The complainant advised the hearing that he had ticked this box in error and withdrew the claim at the hearing.   Accordingly, I declare this claim to be not well founded.

The complainant advised the hearing that he had ticked this box in error and withdrew the claim at the hearing.   Accordingly, I declare this claim to be not well founded.

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

CA-00048555-004

08/02/2022

The complainant withdrew this claim at the hearing.

Concerning the discrimination grounds as outlined at Section G on which the Complainant may seek to base his case that he was discriminated against by way of a person, organisation/ company who provides goods, services or facilities under the Equal Status Act 2000, the Respondent has not received any detail on the basis for this Complaint.    No ES1 Form was submitted on behalf of the Complainant and neither did the Company receive the equivalent information in an alternative format to comply with Section 21 of the Equal Status Act.

The complainant withdrew this claim at the hearing.   Accordingly, I declare this claim to be not well founded.

The complainant withdrew this claim at the hearing.   Accordingly, I declare this claim to be not well founded.