ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00034473
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Kieran Martin | Philip Gilbride |
| 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 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00045532-001 | 04/08/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 16/01/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Anne McElduff
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act [2015-2021] and Section 25 of the Equal Status Act [2000-2018], following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to present their evidence. This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
At the outset I drew the parties attention to the implications of the Supreme Court decision in Zalewski V Adjudication Officer and WRC [2021] IESC 24 and I note the WRC had done likewise prior to the adjudication hearing. I also advised the parties that the adjudication hearing would be conducted in accordance with fair procedures including opportunity for cross examination and that evidence would be taken on oath/affirmation.
The adjudication hearing commenced on 5/7/2022. The Complainant and Respondent attended and neither had representation. Due to persistent IT difficulties which in my view rendered it not possible to properly deal with submissions or evidence, after approximately forty five minutes I decided to adjourn, notwithstanding the objections of the Respondent.
The WRC confirmed my decision and reason to adjourn by letter to the parties of 5/7/2022.
.
The adjudication hearing resumed and concluded on 16/1/2023. The Respondent attended but the Complainant did not attend. Having satisfied myself that the Complainant had been properly notified of the adjudication hearing by letter from the WRC of 28/11/2022 and that he had been issued with the relevant Webex link, I decided to proceed with the hearing as scheduled.
Background:
The background to this complaint was the Covid-19 pandemic and the Respondent’s policy on wearing a face mask. Whilst both parties cited the provisions of SI 296/2020 the focus of my jurisdiction is not the provisions or implementation of SI 296/2020 but rather whether discrimination on the disability ground had occurred, contrary to the Equal Status Act [2000-2018]. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case
The Complainant’s completed Complaint Form was received by the WRC on 4/8/2021. The Complainant submitted additional documentation in support of his complaint. In the documentation, the Complainant outlined his dealings with the Respondent and he stated that he had been discriminated against on the disability ground on 8/2/2021 contrary to the provisions of the Equal Status Act [2000-2018]. He further submitted in the documentation that he had been treated unlawfully and that the Respondent had failed to provide him with reasonable accommodation. The Complainant stated on his Complaint Form that he notified the Respondent of his complaint via the ES1 Form on 12/2/2021 and did not receive a reply. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent disputed and denied the complaint. The Respondent submitted documentation in support of his position. In the course of his submissions and sworn oral evidence, the Respondent outlined his dealings with the Complainant both prior to and on 8/2/2021. He stated that the Complainant did not disclose the nature of his disability or the reason for any purported exemption from wearing a face mask. The Respondent stated that he acted in accordance with health and safety and in compliance with government regulations which were in force at the time in relation to Covid-19. He stated that he was anxious the Complainant would not be without his money and that he offered options to resolve matters. |
Findings and Conclusions:
A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission from the Complainant on 4/8/2021. The said complaint was referred to me for investigation. As outlined under the paragraph headed ‘Procedure’, the adjudication hearing commenced remotely on 5/7/2022 but was adjourned due to persistent IT difficulties. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant at the subsequent resumed hearing held on 16/1/2023.
In circumstances where I satisfied myself that the Complainant had been properly notified by letter of the time and date of the resumed adjudication hearing and issued with the relevant Webex link, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me, I must conclude that the within complaint is not well-founded and I decide accordingly.
|
Decision:
Section 25 of the Equal Status Act [2000-2018] requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act.
CA-00045532-001 For the reasons outlined this complaint is not well founded.
|
Dated: 25/01/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Anne McElduff
Key Words:
Non-Attendance of Complainant |