ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00047990
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Roberto Espinoza | Michael Hegarty |
Representatives | N/A | Dan O'Connor, Terence F. Casey & Company LLP |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00058978-003 | 22/09/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 20/02/2024 and 25/04/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Elizabeth Spelman
Procedure:
In accordance with section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and/or section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 – 2015, 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.
The matter was heard remotely, pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the Workplace Relations Commission (the “WRC”) as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
Background:
On 22 September 2023, Mr. Roberto Espinoza (the “Complainant”) submitted a complaint to the Director General of the WRC, alleging that Mr. Michael Hegarty (the “Respondent”) contravened the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015, as revised.
First Hearing Day:
The Hearing was first scheduled for 20 February 2024. The Complainant informed the WRC, the evening before the Hearing, that he required a Spanish-speaking interpreter. The Complainant confirmed his request at the Hearing. The Hearing was adjourned to allow time for the appointment of an interpreter.
Second Hearing Day:
The Hearing was then scheduled for 25 April 2024. The Respondent was in attendance and was represented by Mr. Dan O’Connor of Terence F. Casey & Company LLP. The Respondent confirmed his correct name, which is reflected above.
The WRC-appointed interpreter was also in attendance.
The Complainant did not attend the Hearing. The Complainant was emailed a letter providing notice of the Hearing on 20 February 2024. The same letter also set out the procedure regarding postponement requests. The Complainant did not request a postponement. The Complainant acknowledged receipt of the link to the remote Hearing, which was emailed to him on 23 April 2024.
When the Complainant did not attend the Hearing on 25 April 2024, a grace period was allowed to enable the Complainant to attend or contact the WRC. He did not do so. The WRC attempted without success, to call the Complainant. The WRC also emailed the Complainant but received no response. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent was in attendance. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am satisfied that the Complainant was on notice of the Hearing, however he did not attend. As there is no evidence that the Respondent contravened the Employment Equality Acts 1998–2015 as revised, I must conclude that the Complainant was not discriminated against. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
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.
For the reasons set out above, I must conclude that the Complainant was not discriminated against. |
Dated: 28th May 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Elizabeth Spelman
Key Words:
Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015, Non-Attendance. |