ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00048968
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Silvino Lucena Medeiros | The Convention Centre Dublin |
Representatives |
| Aleksandra Tiilikainen of IBEC |
Complaint(s):
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-00060244-001 | 25/11/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 21/03/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Hugh Lonsdale
Procedure:
In accordance with 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 parties were afforded an opportunity to examine and cross-examine each other’s evidence. All evidence was given under oath or by affirmation.
Background:
The complainant says he was discriminated against when he worked on one particular evening at an event on the premises of the respondent. The respondent says they were not the complainant’s employer. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant says he was discriminated against by the respondent on the grounds of age and race in relation to training, conditions of employment and that he was harassed. He submits that when working at events in the Convention Centre two supervisors communicated with him and other staff members in a loud and rude manner. Also, he is denied access to food after cleaning tables, forced to carry heavy bags and receive inadequate meals during the shift. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submits they are not the correct respondent. The say the complainant was an agency worker who was temporarily assigned to work with the respondent. At no stage was the respondent the complainant’s employer. The events complained of took place on 24/25 November 2023. On 29 November the complainant’s recruitment company informed the respondent that he had made a complaint to them and they gave the respondent the details of the complaint. The complainant did not file a formal complaint with his employer. The details provided to the WRC do not match the information the complainant disclosed to the recruitment company. When they received the complaint the respondent conducted interviews with all 7 managers and 10 team leaders on the night. They were unaware of any incident taking place on the night. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant has submitted a complaint under the Employment Equality Acts. The Act allows that such complaints can be taken against an employer by an employee and a provider of agency work by an agency worker. In this case the respondent is not the complainant’s employer. He could have taken a complaint against the recruitment company, who were his employer. For the reason given I dismiss the claim under section 77A of the Employment Equality Act, as it was taken against an incorrect respondent; therefore it is misconceived as it has no chance of succeeding. |
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.
Incorrect respondent - misconceived |
Dated: 31st May 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Hugh Lonsdale
Key Words:
Employment Equality – incorrect respondent - misconceived |