Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Mouhsine  Benjelloun

Merchandising Technologies Ireland Limited Limited

Representatives

Paul D Maier B.L, instructed by Faisal Khan of  FSK Solicitors

Laura Kerin of IBEC

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000

CA-00062242-001

15/03/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00062242-002

15/03/2024

The complainant referred his complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 15 March 2024. He referred one complaint under the Equal Status Acts on the grounds of religion and Race in relation to victimisation but no narrative was included to set out the details of the complaint. The second complaint was made under the Redundancy Payments in relation to him not receiving any redundancy payment. The narrative stated: “Unfair Redundancy – I was specifically targeted to be made redundant because of my race/ethnicity or religion. No adequate reasons were provided for my redundancy.”. The complainant made no further submission before the hearing on 3 October 2024.

At the hearing the complainant’s requested that I amended the complaints, for the Equal Status Act complaint to be heard under the Employment Equality Act and for the Redundancy Payments Act complaint to be heard under the Unfair Dismissal Act, as these represented the complainant’s allegations that was discriminated against and subjected to a sham redundancy.

 With regard to this preliminary request, I refer to the decision in County Louth VEC v The Equality Tribunal and Pearse Brannigan, (unreported, High Court, McGovern J. 24th July 2009). This decision provides a clear authority to allow me to investigate additional acts once the nature of the claim is the same. In Brannigan, McGovern, J said, “I accept the submission on behalf of the respondent that the form EE1 was only intended to set out, in broad outline, the nature of the complaint. If it is permissible in court proceedings to amend pleadings where the justice of the case requires it, then a fortiori, it should be permissible to amend a claim as set out in a form such as the EE1, so long as the general nature of the complaint (in this case, discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation) remains the same. What is in issue here is the furnishing of further and better particulars, although, it must be said, in the context of an expanded period of time…Of course, it is necessary that insofar as the nature of the claim is expanded, the respondent in the claim must be given a reasonable opportunity to deal with these complaints and the procedures adopted by the Equality Officer must be fair and reasonable and in compliance with the principles of natural and constitutional justice.”

Firstly, in this case it is clear the complainant was employed by the respondent and yet made a claim against his employer under the Equal Status Acts. In circumstances where the nature of the complaint was not set out in the complaint referral form, I consider that I am being asked to do more than accept the “furnishing of further and better particulars”. I did not know the “particulars” in the first instance complaint. The amendment to a complaint under the Employment Equality Acts would, therefore, amount to a new complaint.

Secondly, the Redundancy Payments Act deals with complaints regarding entitlement to redundancy payments in various situations. It does not include the taking of a complaint of unfair dismissal arising from a redundancy situation. The complainant’s representative requested that I allow a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals to be heard. However, in circumstances where the nature of the complaint set out in the complaint referral form is different from that of an unfair dismissal, I consider that I am again being asked to do more than accept the “furnishing of further and better particulars”. The amendment to a complaint under the Unfair Dismissal Act would, therefore, amount to a new complaint.

I confirmed to the complainant’s representative that I could not make the amendments requested. I said that I was ready to hear evidence in relation to the complaints made in the referral form submitted on 15 March 2024.

The complainant’s representative requested time to make a written submission in order that I might consider their requests more fully. I said this should have been done in advance of the hearing. I then confirmed that I had fully considered their submission at the hearing for these amendments and refused the request to make a written submission.

The complainant’s representative confirmed they would not pursuing the complaint’s referred on 15 March 2024. I confirmed that I would be issuing a decision in relation to these complaints.  

CA-00062242-001 – Equal Status Act: as set out above the complainant provided no evidence in pursuit of this complaint. I therefore find that he has failed to establish a complaint of discrimination under the Equal Status Act.

 CA-00062242-002 – Redundancy Payments Act: as set out above the complainant provided no evidence in pursuit of this complaint. I therefore find the complaint is not well founded.

Non-pursuit of complainant