ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00026345
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Nora Ward | Abbey Hotel (Roscommon) Limited |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties |
|
|
Representatives | Ms. Anne Marie Ward | Mr David Gaffney, Solicitor |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00033525-001 | 08/01/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 17/06/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
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.
Background:
On 8th January 2020, the Complainant referred a complaint under the Equal Status Acts to the Commission. Herein, the Complainant alleged that the Respondent discriminated against her in contravention of the Act. Following this referral, the matter was set down for hearing on numerous occasions, and was subject to a series of adjournments thereafter. The matter, and a further matter involving the parties, was listed in parallel for hearing on 17th June 2024. There was no appearance by, or on behalf of the Complainant at this hearing as scheduled. Having reviewed the file, it is apparent that the notice of hearing was correctly issued to the Complainant. Given that no adjournment application was received from the Complainant, the matter proceeded in their absence. |
Summary of the Complainant’s Case:
There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant at the hearing as scheduled. Having reviewed the file, it is apparent that the Complainant was aware of the time, date and venue of the hearing. In circumstances whereby no application to adjourn was received from the Complainant, the matter proceeded in their absence. In this regard, it is further noted that no explanation for the Complainant’s absence was received following the hearing. |
Summary of the Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent attended that the hearing as scheduled, attended by their legal representative and the witnesses required to defend the allegations raised by the Complainant. While the Respondent indicated that they were willing to defend the complaint on its merits, they stated that in the absence of the Complainant, the same must fail. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In the present case the Complainant alleged that the Respondent engaged in prohibited conduct in contravention of the impleaded Act. While the Complainant issued a written submission in this regard, she did not attend a hearing in order to provide sworn evidence in support of the same. In circumstances whereby the Complainant bears the initial burden of proof in relation to such matters, I find that in the absence of such sworn evidence I cannot find in her favour, and the complaint is deemed to be not well-founded. |
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.
I find that the Respondent did not engage in prohibited conduct as defined by the Act. |
Dated: 26/09/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Key Words:
Non-attendance |