Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00041558

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Sarah Mangan	Public Appointments Service

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties

Representatives

The Complainant did not attend and was not represented at the hearing.

Ms Claire Bruton BL instructed by Ms Eileen Burke Chief State Solicitor’s Office

Complaint:

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-00052759-001	09/09/2022

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/08/2023

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 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. In the instant case, there was one party only as the Complainant did not attend. The hearing was conducted in person in Lansdowne House.

While the parties are named in the Decision, I will refer to Sarah Mangan as “the Complainant” and to the Public Appointments Service as “the Respondent”.

The Complainant did not attend and was not represented at the hearing. The Respondent was represented at the hearing by Ms Claire Bruton BL instructed by Ms Eileen Burke of the Chief State Solicitor’s Office. Ms Eimear O’Connor Head of Recruitment and Service Delivery attended the hearing on behalf of the Respondent together with Ms Aoife Lyons, Head of Assessment Services and Senior Psychologist.

Background:

This matter came before the Workplace Relations Commission dated 09/09/2022. The Complainant alleges discrimination on grounds of disability in relation to the assessment process and pre-employment clearance undertaken by the Respondent for the position of Temporary Clerical Officer on two separate occasions. The aforesaid complaint was referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose was scheduled to take place on 08/08/2023.

The Respondent disputes the allegations whilst in agreement the Complainant does have a disability. The Respondent submits there is no evidence of discrimination on the grounds of said disability in the operation of the assessment of Temporary Clerical Officer candidates as alleged or at all.

The Complainant did not attend and was not represented at the hearing. The day before the hearing was due to take place, Bank Holiday Monday, 07 August 2023 at 16.12 the Complainant emailed the WRC Post Registration Unit as follows: “Hi, in relation to hearing tomorrow unfortunately I am unable to attend. Regards etc.”

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Claimant did not attend the hearing. No evidence was heard in support of the Complainant’s allegations.

I have waited a more than reasonable period of time before drafting this decision just in case the Complainant decided to make further contact with the WRC.

The Complainant has failed to avail herself of the considerable resources put at her disposal by the WRC. The Complainant has wasted the time and money of the Respondent.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent attended the hearing to refute the claim and to provide evidence in relation to same.

The Respondent was attended by two witnesses in this regard, together with a barrister and an instructing solicitor.

The Respondent had filed a comprehensive factual and legal submission to the WRC on 04/08/2023.

The Respondent representative made an application for the complaint to be struck out on the basis the burden of proof in this complaint rests entirely with the Complainant. The Respondent representative requested that the complaint be dismissed.

Findings and Conclusions:

The Complainant did not attend and was not represented at the hearing. No evidence was heard in support of the Complainant’s allegations. The Complainant has not made out a prima facie case or indeed any case.

In accordance with section 79 of the Employment Equality Act, I am obliged to hold a hearing. I am satisfied the Complainant was notified of the arrangements and I find her failure to attend was unreasonable. In these circumstances, any obligation to pursue an investigation in accordance with section 79 of the Act has ceased. As the Complainant did not attend to present evidence in support of her allegations of discrimination, I conclude the investigation and find against the Complainant.

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.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint 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.

For the reasons stated above I decide this complaint is not well-founded.

Dated: 06/09/2023

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell

Key Words:

No show Complainant;