ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00028012
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Client of a Public Health Service | Public Health Service Provider |
Representatives | Pavels Konosonoks | Conor White Comyn Kelleher Tobin |
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-00036007-001 | 30/04/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/05/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Janet Hughes
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 complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Notice of the hearing issued to the nominated representative of the Complainant by email on 25.03.24 to the email address provided and from which previous correspondence was received by the WRC. Neither the Complainant nor her representative attended the hearing.
As the Complainant did not attend the hearing, I have anonymised the parties, naming only the representatives on record, as I consider no public interest would be served in identifying the Complainant or providing any details which might identify her disability.
Background:
The complaint(s) were ones of discrimination and harassment of the Complainant by the Respondent in the provision of mental health services.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
A detailed written submission was provided on behalf of the Complainant. However, the Complainant did not attend the hearing to provide evidence in support of the complaint and the submission. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent offered a hard copy of their submission at the hearing. However, that submission was not opened or discussed at the hearing and I declined to take a copy given the absence of the Complainant. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In the absence of the Complainant, the Respondent had no case to answer. In the circumstances I declare the complaint not well founded. |
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.
CA-00036007-001 The complaint by the Complainant against the Respondent is not well founded. |
Dated: 15th May 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Janet Hughes
Key Words:
Equal Status / Disability Ground/Provision of Services/No attendance |