Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00047779
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An Electrician | An Electrical Engineering Company |
Representatives | Self-represented | Christina O’Byrne, BL |
Complaint:
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-00058837-001 | 15/09/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/02/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 - 2015, this complaint was assigned to me by the Director General. A hearing was scheduled for February 14th 2024, for me to make enquiries and for the parties to have an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence relevant to the complaint.
At the hearing, the complainant, represented himself, and he was assisted by an interpreter, Mr Adam Brozynski. The respondent was represented by Ms Christina O’Byrne, BL, instructed by Ms Anne Marie James of Kirwan, McKeown James Solicitors. Ms James was accompanied by Ms Hannah Johnson. Three members of the company’s management team attended the hearing, along with one of the complainant’s former colleagues.
Background:
The complainant is an electrician and he started working with the respondent in 2018. The company is a critical power solutions provider for large businesses. This complaint was submitted to the WRC on September 15th 2023. The complainant alleges that he was discriminated against on the grounds of his race and religion. At the opening of the hearing, the complainant said that he wasn’t certain if he was discriminated against, but he felt that he was harassed. He did not provide a written submission, he did not identify a comparator who was treated more favourably that he was and he did not intend to call witnesses. It was apparent to me that the complainant was unprepared for a formal hearing at the WRC and that he did not understand the process. Having read the narrative on the complaint form submitted by the complainant, and, having conducted some initial enquiries, I am satisfied that the complainant has a grievance regarding how he was treated in response to his failure to wear a mask during the Covid-19 pandemic. Later on, he was upset that he was the subject of a disciplinary sanction for making a mistake at work. |
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.
In accordance with s.77A of the Employment Equality Act 1998, I have decided to dismiss this complaint, because it is misconceived. Mindful of the general principle at s.41(14)(a) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, that the parties should be named, in accordance with s.41(14)(b), I have decided to anonymise this Decision. The complainant is a lay litigant and it was apparent to me that he was inexperienced and unprepared for the hearing and that it was a stressful experience for him. It is my view that there is no advantage and no public gain for his name or the name of his employer to be published. |
Dated: 23/02/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne
Key Words:
Complaint is misconceived. |