ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00044775
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Pedro Henrique De Almeida Bettio | Trinity College Dublin |
Representatives | Self-represented | Rosemary Mallon BL |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00055436-001 Closed | 07/03/2023 |
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-00055436-002 Closed | 07/03/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00055720-001 Closed | 26/03/2023 |
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-00055720-002 Closed | 26/03/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00055720-003 | 26/03/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 13/10/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne
Procedure:
In accordance with section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 – 2015 and section 25 of the Equal Status Act 2000, these complaints were assigned to me by the Director General. I conducted a hearing on October 13th 2023, at which I made enquiries and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence relevant to the complaints. The complainant, Mr Pedro Bettio, attended the hearing alone and represented himself. Trinity College Dublin was represented by Ms Rosemary Mallon BL, instructed by Mr Lorcan Maule of Mason Hayes and Curran Solicitors. Ms Mallon was accompanied by Ms Úna Clifford BL. Attending to give evidence for Trinity College were, Ms Sinéad McBride, College Solicitor and Information Compliance Officer and her deputy, Ms Orla Cummins, Professor Martine Smith, Dean of Graduate Studies and Mr Alex McKee, the Manager of the School of Medicine.
Background:
Mr Bettio commenced as a full-time post-graduate student in the School of Medicine in Trinity College Dublin in September 2019. Prior to his commencement, he applied for and was granted the Provost’s PhD Project Award which meant that his fees were covered for four years and he received an annual maintenance grant of €16,000. On March 7th 2023, Mr Bettio submitted complaints to the WRC under the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and the Pensions Act 1990. On March 26th, he re-submitted these complaints and added a further complaint under The Equal Status Act 2000. At the opening of the hearing, on behalf of the College, Ms Mallon raised a preliminary issue concerning the complaints submitted by Mr Bettio under the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and the Pensions Act 1990. Ms Mallon said that Mr Bettio was not an employee of Trinity College and therefore, he has no right to have complaints heard under these Acts. Mr Bettio said that he had a lack of knowledge regarding the form he submitted to the WRC. On the form, he alleged that he was discriminated against on the grounds of his gender, race and his membership of the Traveller community. He said that he was advised to submit a complaint to the WRC by the Office of the Ombudsman. He said that he feels that he was discriminated against and he said that he wished to proceed to have his complaint heard under the Equal Status Act 2000. I am satisfied that Mr Bettio was a PhD student in Trinity College Dublin and that he was in receipt of a maintenance grant which was not wages. I am satisfied that he was never employed by the College, and, for this reason, I have decided that his complaints under the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and the Pensions Act 1990 are misconceived. A second preliminary issue raised by Ms Mallon concerns the time limit for submitting a complaint under the Equal Status Act. Mr Bettio ceased being a student in Trinity College in March 2022. He submitted his complaint to the WRC under the Equal Status Act 2000 on March 26th 2023. Referring to the decision of the Labour Court in Cementation Skanska v Carroll[1], Ms Mallon argued that Mr Bettio has offered no reasonable explanation for the delay in submitting his complaint and that I must not waive the time limit requirement which is set out at s.21 of the Act. Before considering Mr Bettio’s complaint of discrimination, in the first instance, I intend to deal with the issue of the time limit. |
Background to the Complainant’s Case:
Mr Bettio commenced as a PhD student in the School of Medicine in in September 2019. At his 18-month continuation assessment on March 24th 2021, his supervisors expressed concern about him continuing as a postgraduate student. Additional support was arranged, and weekly supervision meetings were held with Mr Bettio, but on June 21st 2021, the supervisors recommended that he should not continue on the postgraduate programme. This decision was confirmed to him on July 6th 2021. While the decision was that Mr Bettio should not progress any further with his PhD studies, a decision was made that he should have an opportunity to write up his thesis for consideration as a Masters degree by research. Mr Bettio appealed the decision to not permit him to proceed with the PhD. Due to the sudden death of her sister, Mr Bettio’s supervisor was absent from June 21st until July 19th 2021 and she was not in attendance at the continuation panel meeting on June 21st. On September 9th 2021, the Dean of Graduate Studies upheld Mr Bettio’s appeal on the grounds that the regulations in respect of the attendance of his supervisor were incorrectly applied. The Dean of Graduate Studies approved the recommendation that Mr Bettio should not continue with the PhD, but that he should have a six-month extension of free fees from September 2021 until March 2022 and that he should be permitted to submit his research for consideration for a Masters degree. In late 2021, Mr Bettio refused to complete a lone work assessment related to his attendance in the laboratory and he was requested to attend a meeting with the School Manager and Safety Officer and the Head of Discipline of Clinical Microbiology. He was instructed not to enter the laboratory without approval in advance from his supervisor. He advised the managers that he had completed his lab work and, on this basis, he was instructed to complete his thesis at home. Mr Bettio ceased being a student at Trinity College in March 2022. He has not submitted a thesis for a Masters degree. He submitted a complaint in which he alleged that he was intimidated, discriminated against and treated as irrelevant by his school. In a report issued by the Director of Postgraduate Teaching and Learning on June 20th 2022, his complaints were not upheld. Mr Bettio appealed against the findings of this investigation and, on November 2nd 2022, the Appeals Group who considered his appeal made no changes to the conclusions of the report of June 20th 2022. On February 28th 2023, using an ES1 form, Mr Bettio sent a complaint to the College’s HR Department, under s.21 of the Equal Status Act 2000. |
Findings on the Issue of the Time Limit:
A person contemplating a complaint of discrimination under the Equal Status Act 2000 (“the Act”) is generally expected to comply with two separate time limits. The first, at section 21(2) of the Act, provides that a complainant must, within two months after the date on which the prohibited conduct is alleged to have occurred, notify the respondent in writing and inform them of his or her intention to seek redress. Mr Bettio sent his notification to the College on February 28th 2023, almost one year after he ceased being a student in Trinity College and more than one year after the incidents that he complained about occurred. The second time limit is set out at section 21(6) and this provides that a complaint of discrimination may not be referred to the WRC more than six months after the most recent incident of discrimination. Mr Bettio has also exceeded this time limit because he submitted this complaint to the WRC on March 26th 2023, more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination. Section 21(3)(a) of the Act provides that, for reasonable cause, I may substitute the two-month time limit for four months. I am also permitted, “exceptionally, where satisfied that it is fair and reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case to do so,” disapply the time limit entirely. Mr Bettio did not apply for an extension of the time limit and he did not explain why he waited more than a year to submit his complaints to the WRC. The precedent in Cementation Skanska is therefore of no assistance because I have no explanation to consider against the test set out by the Labour Court in that decision. It is apparent to me that the genesis of Mr Bettio’s complaints lies in the decision of June 2021 to prevent him from continuing with his PhD programme. He submitted no evidence that leads me to assume that that decision was in any way related to his gender or his race. He is not a member of the Traveller community and his complaint on that ground is misconceived. It is apparent also that, in the months from June 2021 until March 2022, Mr Bettio’s relationship with the College deteriorated, mainly due to his conduct and his failure to co-operate with the thesis committee which was set up to support him to finish his thesis to the standard required of a Masters degree. He produced no evidence to indicate that the staff who engaged with him were ill disposed towards him because of his race or his gender. Mr Bettio is a capable person who has completed third level education. In June 2021, he appealed against the decision to not allow him to complete a PhD. In March 2022, he submitted a complaint after he was instructed not to enter the laboratory without approval. He appealed against the outcome of that investigation. Mr Bettio’s complaints of discrimination were properly investigated in accordance with the students’ complaints procedure and a report was issued on June 20th 2022. He was dissatisfied with the outcome of that investigation, but he failed to submit his complaint under the Equal Status Act until 10 months later, on February 28th 2023. He gave no explanation for the delay. Information regarding how to submit a complaint about discrimination is widely available on the websites of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission and the Citizens Information Service. The requirements regarding the time limits are clearly set out in the guidance notes for submitting a complaint on the website of the WRC. I have observed that many people who have less advantages than Mr Bettio have successfully submitted complaints without legal assistance, within the required timeframes. The documents submitted by Trinity College show that many people invested time and resources in examining Mr Bettio’s allegations and that his complaints were treated seriously. Based on his record of accessing the relevant authorities to have his complaints heard, I find that there was no impediment to him bringing a complaint to the WRC within the six-month timeframe stipulated at s.21(6)(a) or the 12-month timeframe which is set out at s.21(6)(b) of the Equal Status Act. Having considered the documents submitted by Mr Bettio in preparation for a hearing of his complaints, I find that, on the basic facts, there is no evidence to indicate that he was discriminated against in the way he was treated by his supervisors, tutors and other personnel. I find further that Mr Bettio has failed to explain why he did not submit his complaints within the statutory time limits. |
Decision:
Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act.
I have concluded that Mr Bettio has not established that there was a reasonable cause for his failure to submit an ES1 form to Trinity College Dublin within the two-month time limit specified at section 21(2)(a) of the Equal Status Acts 2000 - 2018. I have also concluded that there was no reasonable cause for his failure to submit a complaint to the WRC within the 12-month time limit which is specified at s.21(6)(b) of the Act. I find also that he has failed, on the basic facts, to make out a case that he was discriminated against. For these reasons, I decide that his complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 28-02-2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne
Key Words:
Time limits |
[1] Cementation Skanska (formerly Kvaerner Cementation) v Carroll, DWT0338