EDA2425

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00036772 (CA-00048058-002)

BACKGROUND:

The Employer appealed the decision of the WRC Adjudication Officer under Section 83 (1), Employment Equality Acts, 1998 to 2015 on 3rd October 2023.  The Worker also appealed the decision of the Adjudication Officer on 6th October 2023.  A Labour Court hearing took place on 27th June 2024.  The following is the Decision of the Court:-

DETERMINATION:

This is an appeal by Neville Hotels Ltd, the Respondent and a cross appeal by Ms Corral Fernandez the Complainant, against Adjudication Officer Decision ADJ-00036772 -CA-00048058-002 in a claim of sexual harassment. The complaint was made pursuant to the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015 (the Acts).  The Adjudication Officer upheld the complaint and awarded €2,000 in compensation. This complaint is linked to ADE/23/122.

Background.

The Complainant submits that she was sexually harassed at work. The Respondent denies that allegation and submitted that there was no complaint of sexual harassment properly lodged with the WRC. The Adjudication Officer in the findings and conclusions section of their decision, held that they were satisfied that the statement sent to the WRC on the 27th of January 2022, contained an allegation of sexual harassment. If that statement was to be accepted as a complaint of sexual harassment, the cognisable period for the purpose of the Act would be the 28th July 2021 to 27th January 2022.

 The Complainant was employed by the Respondent from the 22nd June 2021 until 22nd December 2021. As the Complaint is a lay litigant the Court talked her through the requirement under the Act to identify which of the nine grounds, she was making her complaint under, and to identify what she alleges is a breach of the Act during the cognisable period, and how that was linked to the ground she identified.  The Court took a short recess to allow the Complainant time to prepare to address these issues as they were not addressed in her written submission.

 Preliminary issues.

 Following the break the Complainant informed the Court that she was relying on the religious ground. She went on to say that she does not identify with any particular religion but is very spiritual and that her spirituality is a religion.  She said the breach of the Act related to the action of a client which offended her spirituality.

 In respect of the issue raised by the Respondent as to whether the statement submitted on the 27th January 2022, as identified by the Adjudication Officer was a referral of a complaint of sexual harassment, the Court reviewed the email and could find no mention of, or allegation of sexual harassment, or anything that could be considered too possibility be sexual harassment.  The email in question, references that the Complainant feels she has been discriminated against because of her cultural background and age.

 It was not disputed between the parties that the first-time sexual harassment as an issue was raised, was at the Adjudication hearing on the 9thMay 2023 some sixteen months after the Complainants employment had ended, and outside the time limits set down in the legislation.

Decision.

The Court finds that there is no valid complaint of sexual harassment before it, and that the Complainant failed to identify a relevant ground in respect of her complaint.

The appeal succeeds. The decision of the Adjudication Officer is set aside.

The Court so determines.  

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
CC	______________________
15th July 2024	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.