Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Aidan  Seymour

Mercer (Ireland) Limited

Representatives

 No appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant

J.P Comerford , Legal Counsel.

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00053269-001

14/10/2022

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

CA-00053269-002

14/10/2022

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

CA-00053269-003

14/10/2022

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-00053269-004

14/10/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 86 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00053269-005

14/10/2022

From October 11, 2022, the complainant a retiree and member of an occupational pension scheme submitted a booklet of complaints to the WRC, wherein, the respondent was recorded as one the objective of the complaints.

During the period October 2022 to February 2023, the WRC sought to clarify the complainants’ actual live complaints as he had submitted details of parallel claims made to other statutory bodies concerning his pursuance of benefits from his Occupational Pension scheme.

During the period, February to April 2023, the Respondent was placed on notice of the complaints.

During this period also, the WRC notified the complainant that a number of his complaints were directed towards a different respondent were outside the statutory time limit for such complaints.

On 25 April 2023, the WRC shared the Respondents shared concerns regarding their role in the case directly with the complainant, when they wrote:

I’m writing in relation to the attached letter received by us on Tuesday April 18th.

Please note that Mr. Seymour has never been an employee of Mercer (Ireland) Limited, nor has he applied for employment with us. We have an indirect relationship with him, in that Mr Seymour was an employee of Henry Ford & Son, and Mercer are paying agent for pensions payable from the Ford Contributory (No. 2) Pension Fund. Mr Seymour has been in contact with us and the trustees regarding his participation in that pension plan.

Given the above we do not believe that the WRC is the appropriate forum for this complaint, but please let us know if we are mistaken.

The Complainant was requested to address these concerns. There was no response.

On 11 July 2023, the parties were both invited to hearing scheduled for 4 September 2023, in Cork.

On 20 July, I sought to obtain a response to the Respondents stated concerns of April 18, 2023, that they were the incorrect respondent.

In addition, the Respondent Legal Counsel made a number of follow ups on their earlier correspondence .

On 8 August 2023, the WRC received a handwritten letter from the Complainant. This letter was dated 31 July 2023, directed at the Secretary WRC, and stated that due to ill health the complainant was unable to “continue with this engagement “at WRC and a number of other named bodies.

On 30 August 2023, I forwarded the following letter to the Complainant at his home address. The WRC ensured registered post and have been in a position to confirm that the letter was delivered to the address.

I am the Adjudicator assigned to hear your case on Monday next here in the Cork Office.

In my preparation for the hearing, I have reviewed the file. It seems to me that you have sought to withdraw this case from WRC on the grounds that you have not enjoyed good health.

At first glance at your letter dated 31 July 2023, you refer to a case number ADJ 431558

The case in preparation for hearing is ADJ 43558.

Please understand that you will be welcome to attend our office next Monday to set out your case as scheduled. The meeting room is booked, and the respondent is on notice.

However, if it is your intention on health grounds to withdraw your case, I would be grateful if you could appraise us of your intentions as soon as possible please. It is also perfectly in order if you wish to attend in person on Monday next.

I will forward this communication to the Respondent for information purposes.

I did not receive a response to the letter and there was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant at hearing.

The Respondent was in attendance in the form of their representative Mr. JP Comerford, Legal Counsel.

I have waited the 5 days post hearing required and there has not been any further contact or correspondence received from the complainant.

On a very careful review of the handwritten letter of July 31, 2023, and received 8 August 2023, it certainly reads as a stated intention to cease the causes of action, however, I have not received the confirmation of withdrawal sought against an inaccurate case number ADJ 431558.

I find the safest and most respectful option for me now is to move to decision in all 5 complaints before me.

The Respondent has outlined that they are not the correct respondent in the case.

The Complainant has introduced his case as a claim of discrimination on grounds of disability with regard to being denied pension benefits from the Ford Contributions No Pension.

In the documents submitted by the complainant, he described a 24-year employment record at the Fords Motor plant which ended in 1984 through redundancy.

He described seeking to secure occupational pension benefits and /or a disability pension and was unsuccessful.

He described seeking the identification of the Trustees of the Pension, which were made known to him after a long search.

The Complainant submitted many documents of parallel pursuance through political, and external body routes.

The Complainant did not attend the hearing in his case or explain the reason for his nonappearance. He has not withdrawn his complaints.

CA-00053269-001   Employment Equality

The complainant wrote on his complaint form that he had been discriminated against by his employer under the Employment Equality Acts on grounds of age.

The most recent date of discrimination was cited as 12 December 2022.

CA-00053269-002 Employment Equality

The complainant wrote on his complaint form that he had been discriminated against by his employer under the Employment Equality Acts by not receiving equal pay due to disability.

The most recent date of discrimination was cited as 12 December 2022.

CA-00053269-003 Pensions Act 1990

The complainant wrote on his complaint form that he had been discriminated against by way of an occupational pension.

CA-00053269-004 Section 86 of the Employment Equality Act 1998

The complainant wrote on his complaint form that he had been discriminated against by way of a collective agreement.

CA-00053269-005   This is not a valid complaint under the Equal Status Act 2000 as the no 5 box was not ticked on the complaint form received on 16 December 2022. The Complaint form was unsigned or dated.

The Respondent is an Agent for the Occupational Pension scheme referred to in the complainants’ documents.

The Respondent legal representatives have made a number of submissions to the WRC prehearing which sought to confirm that they were not the Complainants employer and as Paying Agent for the pension scheme were prepared to co operate with the alternate bodies, who are currently inquiring into the issues raised.

The Respondent contended that it was not appropriate to deal with the matter and sought leave not to have attend.

The Administrative section of the WRC urged attendance as they did not hold the power to dismiss the claims.

The Respondent attended at hearing on September 4, 2023, at 10 am.

Mr Comerford confirmed that the Respondent acted as a Paying Agent for the occupational pension relied on by the complainant in his papers. The Respondent had no authority to re-in state benefits.

It was the Respondent case that the complainant had named the wrong employer and had never been an employee.

The WRC was the wrong route.

The Respondent understood the matter was live at Financial Ombudsman level and confirmed cooperation with that process, if needed.

The Respondent representative expressed a concern that he hoped the complainant’s health was ok.

CA-00053269-001   Employment Equality

It was the Respondent case that the complainant had named the wrong employer and had never been an employee.

The Respondent did not have a case to answer.

CA-00053269-002 Employment Equality

It was the Respondent case that the complainant had named the wrong employer and had never been an employee.

The Respondent did not have a case to answer.

CA-00053269-003 Pension Act

It was the Respondent case that the complainant had named the wrong employer and had never been an employee.

The Respondent did not have a case to answer.

CA-00053269-004 Employment Equality  

It was the Respondent case that the complainant had named the wrong employer and had never been an employee.

The Respondent did not have a case to answer.

C A-00053269-005 Equal Status Act, 2000

 It was the Respondent case that the complainant had named the wrong employer and had never been an employee.

The Respondent did not have a case to answer.

I have been requested to make 5 decisions in this case. In reaching my decision, I have had regard for the documents submitted by the complainant and the consistent responses tabled by the Respondent.

I did not have the complainant to outline his case at hearing. I did have a document dated July 31, 2023, received by the WRC on August 8, 2023, which sought to excuse the complainant from pursuing these cases through ill health.

I made a genuine attempt to follow this up in my correspondence to the complainants home dated August 30, cited above, but did not receive a response or confirmation of withdrawal.

This file is populated by a number of details of parallel complaints on this topic to other statutory bodies. There is an informative document from the pension trustees, not the respondent, dated January 18, 2023, which describes a refunded set of contributions issued as 2 pension entitlement under the scheme was extinguished “I am unable to validate this assertion.

I have numbered these complaints on the strict sequencing on the complaint form dated 16 December 2022.

On the papers submitted, I found a statement that the complainant had taken a refund of his pension subs in 1984 on the closure of Fords Motor plant. It is this pension that the complainant now appears to be seeking and for which he has submitted the Respondent as his employer.

I would have liked to have met the complainant to help me understand his claim, however, despite our best attempts, we have not secured his attendance.

The Complainant has not submitted a medical certificate to cover his absence at hearing.

I am satisfied that he was fully on notice of the hearing in the case as he referred to the ongoing case in his correspondence of 31 July 2023.

I accept that the Respondent is not the correct employer and is a Paying Agent for the occupational pension. However, the claims are also manifestly out of time, given that the employment appears to have ended in July 1984.

I have insufficient detail before me to consider these claims viable.

I find that I have no option but to apply the terms of Section 77 (A) of the Employment Equality Act 1998

Dismissal of claim.

77A.— (1) The Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission may dismiss a claim at any stage if of opinion that it has been made in bad faith or is frivolous, vexatious or misconceived or relates to a trivial matter.

(2) (a) Not later than 42 days after the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission dismisses a claim under this section, the complainant may appeal against the decision to the Labour Court on notice to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission specifying the grounds of the appeal.

(b) On the appeal the Labour Court may affirm or quash the decision.

CA-00053269-001   Employment Equality

  I find this claim to be misconceived and I dismiss the claim in accordance with Section 77 (A)(1) of the Act.

CA-00053269-002 Employment Equality

  I find this claim to be misconceived and I dismiss the claim in accordance with Section 77 (A)(1) of the Act.

CA-00053269-003 004 Pensions Act 1990

I have to have regard for the  wording of the legislation under which this complaint is submitted. My jurisdiction arises in Part VII of the Act Section 81E and requires that a claim is submitted within the first six months post termination of employment or 12 months by equitable reasonable cause.

The burden of proof is outlined under section 76.

81E. The forum for seeking redress.

(1) A person who claims not to be receiving, or not to have received, equal pension treatment in accordance with this Part or to have been penalised in circumstances amounting to victimisation may, subject to subsections (3) to (6)] and subsections (1) and (2) of section 81F, seek redress by referring the case to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission.

(2) […].

[(3) If the grounds for such a claim arise in relation to a breach of the principle of equal pension treatment on the gender ground, the person making the claim may, subject to subsections (4) to (7) and section 81F (1), seek redress by referring the case to the Circuit Court instead of to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission

(4) In this Part, in relation to a case referred under any provision of this section or section 81F—

[‘the complainant’ ‘the complainant’ means—

(i) the person by whom it is referred, or

(ii) where such a person is unable, by reason of an intellectual or a psychological disability, to pursue it effectively, his or her parent, guardian or other person acting in place of a parent;]

‘The respondent’ means any or all of the following—

(a) the person who is alleged to have discriminated against the complainant in breach of the principle of equal pension treatment,

(b) the person who is responsible for admitting members to a scheme,

(c) the person who is alleged to be responsible for the victimisation and includes the trustees of an occupational benefit scheme.

(5) Subject to subsection (6), a claim for redress in respect of a breach of the principle of equal pension treatment or victimisation may not be referred under this section after the end of the period of 6 months from the date of termination of the relevant employment.

(6) On application by a complainant, the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission or the Circuit Court as the case may be, may, for reasonable cause, direct that, in relation to the complainant, subsection (5) shall have effect as if for the reference in it to a period of 6 months there were substituted a reference to such period not exceeding 12 months as is specified in the direction, and where such a direction is given, this Part shall have effect accordingly.

(7) Where a delay by a complainant in referring a case under this section is due to any misrepresentation by the respondent, subsection (5) shall be construed as if the reference in it to the date of termination of relevant employment were a reference to the date on which the fact of misrepresentation came to the complainant's notice.

Section 81E inserted by s.22 of the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004, (No. 9 of 2004), with effect from April 5, 2004 (S.I. No. 141 of 2004).

Subsections (1) and (6) amended, subsection (2) deleted, subsection (3) substituted and definition of ‘the complainant’ in subsection (4) substituted by s.66 of the Equality Act 2004, (No. 24 of 2004), with effect from July 18, 2004.

Subsections (1), (3) and (6) amended by s.82(b) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 (No. 16 of 2015), with effect from 1 October 2015 (S.I. No. 410 of 2015).

The Complainant has not come forward to open his case. He has not given evidence.

This claim is statute barred. The claim is not well founded.

CA-00053269-004 Employment Equality Act 1998

  I find this claim to be misconceived and I dismiss the claim in accordance with Section 77 (A)(1) of the Act.

CA-00053269-005 Equal Status Act 2000

I cannot accept that this is a viable complaint   submitted under the Act. I cannot establish that a claim was made under the Act, but rather a mistaken record was applied in the midst of over 30 complaints being made. Most of which have a closed status applied as they were directed at a separate legal entity.

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.

CA-00053269-001   Employment Equality 1998

  I find this claim to be misconceived and I dismiss the claim in accordance with Section 77 (A)(1) of the Act.

CA-00053269-002 Employment Equality 1998

  I find this claim to be misconceived and I dismiss the claim in accordance with Section 77 (A)(1) of the Act.

CA-00053269-003 Pensions Act 1990

Part VII of the Pension Act at section 81E requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint.

The claim is statute barred as it is not well founded.

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.

CA-00053269-004 Employment Equality Act 1998  

  I find this claim to be misconceived and I dismiss the claim in accordance with Section 77 (A)(1) of the Act.

CA-00053269-005 Equal Status Act 2000

I have not found that a viable claim has been made under the Act.

Complaints regarding benefits sought from an Occupational pension, discrimination