Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Liam  Hogan

Mars Capital Mar Capital Finance Ireland Dac

Representatives

Immogen Schneidlebach IRISH disability and domestic violence Aid

Bríd McCoy AMOSS Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00060745-001

27/12/2023

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’s representatives and four witnesses attended the hearing of this matter. Neither the complainant nor his nominated representative attended the hearing.  The complainant’s representative contacted the WRC repeatedly in advance of the hearing to indicate that she had not received notice of the hearing and would not be in attendance.  In response the staff of the WRC indicated that there was a postponements procedure and that this should be followed where a complainant or their representative are not in a position to attend the hearing.  A copy of the link to the postponement process document was provided.

The respondent made both preliminary and substantive submissions in the weeks leading up to the hearing.  It also enclosed appendices.  The respondent copied its submissions to the nominated representative.  Contained within the appendices is a document from the complainant’s representative to the respondent’s representative dated 28 January 2025 wherein she confirms that she was notified of the details of a hearing to take place in March.

In the days before the hearing the complainant’s representative repeatedly indicated that she was not notified of the hearing and would not be in attendance and the WRC response was consistent: use the procedure provided for in the case of postponements and if seeking an adjournment on the day, a representative should appear in person to seek the adjournment.

On the morning of the hearing, the Manager of the complainant’s representative sent a brief email from the representative’s mailbox to indicate that the representative was in an ambulance and would not be attending.  In response to this last-minute submission, the Adjudication Officer sought documentary/medical confirmation of this situation be provided by close of business 14 March 2025 in order to consider the grant of an adjournment.  It was also indicated that in the absence of such documentation, the matter would be considered as a nonattendance at the hearing.

The hearing, which was convened for 10:30, commenced after a pause of 15 minutes to allow the complainant and/or his representative to attend the hearing.  They did not do so.  The hearing started and the situation was outlined to those present.  The hearing closed noting that the Adjudication Officer was awaiting documentary confirmation, and would, on receipt of such, consider the issue of an adjournment.  He noted that in the absence of such documentation, he would consider it nonattendance on the part of the complainant.  The hearing officially closed pending any developments. 

Shortly thereafter, the WRC received the response of the Manager of complainant’s representative who wrote, amongst other things, that “(the representative was) in hospital I won't have you or anyone making demands the wrc has no authority to make such demands”.

No documentary confirmation has been received by the WRC by close of business on 14 March.  In the circumstances, the nonattendance of the complainant has been noted.

The complainant did not attend the hearing of this matter.

The respondent attended the hearing of this matter with representation and four witnesses.

Section 38A of the Act deals with the Burden of Proof and Section 38A(1)states as follows:

(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 of this matter, facts have not been established from which it may be presumed that prohibited conduct has occurred in relation to him.  Accordingly, I find that no prohibited conduct occurred.

Having regard to all the circumstances of this complaint, my decision is that no prohibited conduct occurred.

Equal Status Act – Nonattendance of complainant – no prohibited conduct established