ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057290
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Sebastião Luz | Holden Installations Limited (amended) |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Donnacha McCarthy BL instructed by Galvin Donegan 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-00069170-001 | 10/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00069170-002 | 12/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00069170-003 | 12/02/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 01/09/2025 and 06/11/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015, and Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000, following the referral of the complaints 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:
These complaints were heard along with ADJ-00056965.
The Complainant appeared in person on the first hearing date and gave evidence on affirmation. The Complainant availed of an interpreter, who also swore an affirmation. Mr. Bentinho, a witness for the Complainant, likewise swore an affirmation.
The Respondent was represented by Donnacha McCarthy BL, instructed by Michael O’Brien. Paul Nolan, Finance Director; David Russell, MD; and Emma Crowley, People and Culture Partner, all swore affirmations. The name of the Respondent was amended to Holden Installations Limited with the consent of the Respondent.
The parties were advised that all documentation being relied upon must be opened in evidence. The Complainant was invited on numerous occasions to identify the documents referred to in his evidence. However, this proved difficult as the documents were not numbered, a substantial volume of documents had been submitted over several months, and the Complainant did not have access to the documents while using Webex on his mobile phone.
During the first remote hearing, the Complainant’s internet connection was poor, which led to difficulty hearing him and restricted his ability to identify his documentary evidence. In the interest of a fair hearing, it was directed that an in-person hearing would be more appropriate. The Complainant strenuously objected on the basis that he was based in Portugal, was not in a financial position to travel to Ireland and had caring responsibility for his child. In response, the Respondent offered to cover his travel expenses to allow him to attend the hearing.
An in person hearing was subsequently scheduled at the Workplace Relations Commission Offices in Cork. After waiting for a reasonable period of time, there was no appearance by the Complainant. The Respondent confirmed that it had not received any communication from the Complainant following its offer to cover his travel expenses or otherwise.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
I am satisfied that the Complainant was served with notice of the hearing date. I am also satisfied that the Complainant was given a fair opportunity to attend the second day of the hearing, with a generous offer by the Respondent to cover his travel expenses. However, the Complainant did not attend to complete his evidence on the second day. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent filed submissions and had witnesses available on both hearing dates in order to meet and fully defend the complaints initiated by the Complainant. Due to the poor internet connection on the first hearing date, the Respondent’s cross-examination of the Complainant commenced but was shortly abandoned as it was impossible to hear the Complainant. On the second hearing date, the Respondent made an application to dismiss the complaints for want of prosecution. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am satisfied that the Complainant was served with notice of the hearing date and was given every opportunity to have his case heard in a fair manner. Where the Respondent did not have a fair opportunity to cross examine the Complainant, and the Complainant chose not to continue with the hearing, I must dismiss the complaint for want of prosecution by the Complainant. |
Decision:
Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.
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.
CA-00069170-001 I find the complainant was not discriminated against by the Respondent. CA-00069170-002 I find the complainant was not discriminated against by the Respondent CA-00069170-003 I find the complainant was not discriminated against by the Respondent |
Dated: 12th January 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Key Words:
|