ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00046973
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Saffron Franey | Six By Nico Dublin Fd Limited Six By Nico |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives |
|
|
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-00057548-001 | 05/07/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/12/2023, 21/02/2024 & 26/04/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with 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:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. The complainant did not attend the hearing of this matter. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant did not attend the hearings of this matter. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent attended the hearings of this matter |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant did not attend either hearing as scheduled. The matter was scheduled on three occasions. On the first occasion, the complainant contacted the WRC the day before the hearing seeking a postponement on the basis that she had a scheduled academic examination to attend. This postponement request was granted. On the second occasion the complainant contacted the WRC shortly before the hearing started to inform the WRC that she had an emergency dental appointment to attend. She was requested to provide written confirmation of the circumstances in order that the hearing might be adjourned. The hearing formally opened with the respondent in attendance and following a short delay closed to await receipt of documentation. She provided notification of a dental appointment later that day. On the third occasion, the complainant contacted the WRC shortly before the hearing commenced to indicate that she was in hospital. She was requested to provide written confirmation of the medical emergency to the WRC by close of business or over the weekend. The hearing formally opened with the respondent in attendance and following a short delay closed to await receipt of documentation. No documentation was received from the complainant. Section 85A of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 – 2015 deals with the Burden of Proof. Section 85A(1) states that: (1) Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a complainant from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination in relation to him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary. As the complainant did not attend the hearing of this matter, she has not established facts from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination in relation to her. Accordingly, I find that the complainant was not discriminated against. |
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.
Having regard to the circumstances of this complaint, my decision is that the complainant was not discriminated against. |
Dated: 13/05/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Employment Equality Act – nonattendance of complainant – documentation sought for nonattendance – no supporting documentation received. |