ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00047934
Parties:
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Parent | A Fire and Security firm |
Representatives | Self-represented | Celine Hand internal HR |
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-00059050-001 | 04/09/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/03/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 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 and a witness for the respondent undertook to give their evidence under affirmation. As a preliminary matter, the respondent indicated that they were not the correct respondent. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
A complaint was made regarding the treatment of the complainant and her daughter were subjected to by a security guard in a retail premises. She made a complaint against the security guards’ employer. The complainant confirmed in evidence that she was now aware that the respondent was not the security guard’s employer and accepted that the respondent cited was not the correct respondent. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submitted that it was not the employer of the security guard in question nor the operator of the retail store. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Section 22 (1) of the Equal Status Act states as follows:- (1) The Director of the Workplace Relations Commission may dismiss a claim at any stage if of opinion that it has been made in bad faith or is frivolous, vexatious or misconceived or relates to a trivial matter. As the named respondent is not the employer of the security guard nor the operator/owner of the retail premises, I find that this complaint is misconceived. |
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.
Having regard to the written and oral submissions made in relation to this matter, my decision is that this complaint is misconceived. |
Dated: 11th of March 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Equal Status Act – not employer nor owner/operator of business - misconceived |