THE EQUALITY TRIBUNAL
EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS 1998-2011
Mr Oscar Caracas (represented by Mr Liam O’Connell, B.L., instructed by Seamus Maguire & Co., Solicitors)
TLC Centre Ltd (represented by Pensinsula Business Services)
File References: EE/2011/545
Date of Issue: 20th December 2013
1.1. The case concerns a claim by Mr Oscar Caracas that TLC Centre Ltd discriminated against him on the ground of race contrary to Section 6(2)(h) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2008, in terms of access to employment, provision of training, harassment and discriminatory dismissal.
1.2. The complainant referred a complaint under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2008 to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 14 July 2011. A submission was received from the complainant on 30 January 2012. A submission was received from the respondent on 19 April 2013. On 7 October 2013, in accordance with his powers under S. 75 of the Acts, the Director delegated the case to me, Stephen Bonnlander, an Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part VII of the Acts. On this date my investigation commenced. I became aware that the complainant had also brought proceedings related to his dismissal under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2005. The Employment Appeals Tribunal had scheduled a hearing of that complaint, but ruled against the complainant as he did not appear. Against this, the complainant brought Judicial Review proceedings against the Employment Appeals Tribunal.
1.3. As required by Section 79(1) of the Acts and as part of my investigation, I arranged for the hearing of the case on 16 December 2013. On this occasion, the respondent and counsel for the complainant were in attendance. The complainant and his solicitor were absent. I enquired of counsel about the outcome of the Judicial Review proceedings. Counsel advised that at the High Court hearing the previous week, an order of certoriari had been granted and that the matter would now be heard by the Employment Appeals Tribunal. Counsel accepted that pursuant the provisions of S. 101 of the Employment Equality Acts, this means that the Equality Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in the matter.
1.4. With regard to the complainant’s other complaints, no details at all were specified in his written submission in relation to same, and no evidence in support of them was adduced at any time. As noted, the complainant did not attend the hearing of the complaint. Counsel for the complainant did not seek to preserve these aspects of the complaint.
2.1. Based on all of the foregoing, I find, pursuant to S. 101(3)(c) of the Acts, that the Employment Appeals Tribunal has begun a hearing into the matter of the complainant’s dismissal, pursuant to the provisions of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2005, and that I therefore lack jurisdiction to investigate the matter. I further find, pursuant to S. 79(6) of the Acts, that the complainant has wholly failed to specify his complaints with regard to access to employment, provision of training, and harassment, and that he did not attend the hearing of the complaint to adduce evidence in relation to same. This part of his complaint must therefore fail.
20 December 2013