ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00049887
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Amanda McCarthy | Castletroy Taverns Limited Finnegans Bar and Restaurant |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties |
|
|
Representatives | Denis Linehan, Denis Linehan & Company | Yuliya Lennon, Solicitor,MHP Sellors LLP |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00060698-001 | 22/12/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/09/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
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.
The matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
The remote hearing was scheduled for 19/09/2024. The respondent and their legal representative attended. The complainant’s legal representative was present and there was no appearance by the complainant. The complainant’s representative informed the hearing that he had advised the complaint of the date and time of the hearing on 06/08/2024 and as the complainant subsequently contacted his office, he was confident that she was aware of the hearing arrangements. Mr Lenihan stated that he contacted the complaint after she failed to attend his office on the morning of the hearing, and she informed him that she was at work and that she did not remember the hearing was scheduled for 09/09/2024. Mr Lenihan stated that he could not progress the complaint without the complainant and in the circumstances, he was seeking an adjournment.
The respondent’s representative submitted that as there was no complainant present to give evidence the proceedings should be dismissed. The respondent’s witnesses were present and available to give evidence. The proceedings were previously adjourned.
Background:
The complainant alleges that she was discriminated against on the grounds of her membership of the Traveller Community. The respondent denies this claim and intended to defend itself in relation to this allegation. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
There was no appearance by the complainant at the remote hearing to pursue this complaint and/or to give evidence. The complainant’s representative confirmed that he had advised the complainant of the date and time of the remote hearing and had made arrangements for the complainant to attend his office in advance of the scheduled hearing time. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondents witness and their legal representative attended the hearing. The respondent’s representative provided the hearing with a comprehensive written submission in response to the complaint. |
Findings and Conclusions:
As there was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant at the remote hearing to pursue this complaint and/or give evidence in relation to this complaint I conclude that this complaint is not well founded. I find that in the absence of a reasonable explanation for her non appearance the request for an adjournment is not granted. |
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.
The request by the complainant’s representative for an adjournment was refused. I am satisfied that the complainant was properly notified of the remoting hearing arrangements. I find that her non-attendance at the hearing to pursue this complaint to be unreasonable. In the absence of any evidence proffered by or on behalf of the complainant I find this complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 is not well-founded. |
Dated: 3rd of October 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words:
Non-attendance. |