ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00043775
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Lynda McBarnett | HEAR - CAO |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives | Nonattendance | Emma Cassidy, B.L., instructed by Matheson LLP |
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-00054764-001 | 06/12/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/10/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000following 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 respondent and their legal representatives attended the hearing, the complainant did not attend the hearing. A short pause of 15 minutes was taken to allow for late entry to the hearing but when no additional attendees logged in, the hearing formally opened, and a short time later closed. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant did not attend the hearing of this complaint. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent attended the hearing, along with their legal representatives. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant did not attend the hearing of this matter. I am satisfied that the appropriate notification of the hearing was sent to the complainant by both email and post to the addresses provided by the complainant. They have offered no explanation for their absence. Section 38A of the Equal Status Act, 2000, sets out the burden of proof that rests on a complainant and states as follows: 38A.—(1) Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a person from which it may be presumed that prohibited conduct has occurred in relation to him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary. As the complainant did not attend the hearing, no facts have been established from which it may be presumed that prohibited act has occurred. Accordingly, I find that that respondent did not engage in prohibited conduct. |
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 circumstances of this complaint, my decision is that the respondent did not engage in prohibited conduct. |
Dated: 12-11-24
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Equal Status Act – nonattendance of complainant at hearing – no facts established – respondent did not engage in prohibited conduct. |