ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

 

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00011137

 

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A Complainant	A Property Company

 

Representatives

None

Lorraine Leech

 

Complaint(s):

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000	CA-00014843-001	08/10/2017

 

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 15/01/2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emile Daly

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000, the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).

 

Background:

Complaint is that the Respondent breached the Equal Status Act 2000 by refusing to rent a property on the basis that the Complainant is in receipt of rent allowance

 

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

No appearance

 

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

This complaint is an abuse of process The Complainant has brought hundreds of identical complaints against different property companies around the country all making the same complaint The complaint is denied by the Respondent in full and an application is make to have the complaint dismissed The Respondent wishes it to be noted by the Adjudicator that considerable time and expense was spent preparing a defence to a complaint that is without merit

 

Findings and Conclusions:

As there was no appearance by the Complainant at the hearing and the Adjudicator being satisfied that the Complainant was properly on notice of the hearing of the complaint the case was dismissed for want of prosecution

 

 

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.

 

This complaint fails for want of prosecution

 

Dated:  

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emile Daly

Key Words:

 

Background:

 

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

 

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

 

Findings and Conclusions:

 

 

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

[Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.

Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.

Section 9 of the Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency) Acts, 1984 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 9 of that Act.

Part VII of the Pensions Acts, 1990 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Part.

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.

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.]

 

Dated:   03.05.2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emile Daly

Key Words: