1. DISPUTE
1.1 This dispute concerns a claim by Ms Celine Dixon that she was discriminated against by Venn Group on the ground of age in relation to her pay, contrary to the provisions of the Employment Equality Act 1998.
1.2 The complainant referred a claim to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 18 June 2003 under the Employment Equality Act 1998. In accordance with her powers under section 75 of that Act, the Director then delegated the case on 24 April 2004 to Anne-Marie Lynch, an Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part VII of the Act. A preliminary hearing was held on 23 September 2004, submissions were sought from both parties and a final hearing was arranged for 27 April 2006. The complainant failed to attend the hearing.
2. OUTCOME
2.1 Both parties had been notified of the hearing date by letter dated 3 November 2005. On the afternoon of 24 April 2006, the complainant advised the Director by email that she was unable to attend. By email on 25 April, the complainant was asked to outline the exceptional circumstances that would support the granting of an adjournment. Her reply, late on the same day, said that she was unable to get time off work. She was informed, again by email, on 26 April, that the Director had not granted the adjournment and that the hearing would be proceeding as scheduled. A final email was received from the complainant on the morning of 27 April, reiterating that she was unable to get time off.
2.2 The Tribunal's Guide to Procedures for Investigating and Mediating Complaints makes it clear that written material sent to the Tribunal is not a sufficient basis for establishing a case. In the interests of natural justice, the complainant must also appear to give his or her evidence, unless the facts are agreed. Failure of the complainant to appear may result in the respondent having no case to answer.
2.3 It should be noted that at no time did the complainant suggest an alternative time at which she could undertake to be present. It should further be noted that the complainant had earlier been facilitated by several re-schedulings of preliminary hearings and one previous re-scheduling of the final hearing.
2.5 In this case, I am satisfied that the complainant's failure to attend the hearing, without valid cause and having been given almost six months notice, means that the respondent has no case to answer.
3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the foregoing, I find that Ms Dixon failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the ground of age, contrary to the provisions of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 - 2004.
_____________________
Anne-Marie Lynch
Equality Officer
27 April 2006