ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00035078
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Reima Petramaa | Bentley Systems |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00046243-001 | 14/09/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing:
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I have studied the complaint and now find as follows
Background:
The complainant referred a complaint against the respondent on 14th September 2021 alleging the respondent discriminated against him on the grounds of sexual orientation and that the Respondent had treated him unlawfully by discriminating against him and harassing him. The Complainant had applied for a position with the Respondent and attended for interview on 13th September 2021. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Recently I applied for a position of Subscription Renewals Representative with Bentley Systems. This I did because I thought there is a similarity between tasks I had with N3 Results Ireland Ltd and this task with the company. I had a job interview yesterday i.e. on Monday 13.9.2021 at 10:30 - 11.30 via Teams meeting. In my opinion, I performed well at this meeting and showed my professionalism in renewing software licenses with Microsoft. Bentley Systems was seeking this kind of person who has expertise in this field. I complied with good manners myself but at certain moment during the interview (name redacted) criticised my appearance by saying "he is too fat". On Saturday 11.9.2021 around 17:35 (name redacted) informed me in Finnish behind the wall that both interviewers are here next door. Before and after this this interview I was bullied and nagged several times by (name redacted). Please find some sayings of her as it follows: "Beautiful application which is now off", 11.9.2021 "They don't like non-gays", 11.9.2021, at 17:40 "Even Bentley is non-straight", 11.9.2021, at 17:45 "It's a win-win, we don't take you off Reima, (name redacted) 11.9.2021, at 18:02 "I am quite non-straight Reima, (name redacted), 11.9.2021, at 19:53 "He is lost hire, I don't like crimes at all", (name redacted), 12.9.2021, at 00:19 "We don't take you off Reima, we take Italian", (name redacted), Tue 14.9.2021, at 7:01 "We don't take straights, because they beat us in working",(name redacted), Tue 14.9.2021 at 7:03 "By this way Reima is said goodbye by Bentley Systems ", a Finnish man in Finnish, Tuesday 14.9.2021, at 7:08 "I don't take Reima off", (name redacted), Tuesday 14.9.2021 at 7:35 "I don't like his presence who is this Reima", Tuesday 14.9.2021 at 7:38 "We eat him off from every workplace, if you come here", (name redacted), Tuesday 14.9.2021, at 7:41 "They don't take you to the next round, because you are too nice (offensive word removed)", a man in English, Tuesday 14.9.21, at 9:10 "It was this (name redacted) idea to come here and trash you off", (an interviewer), Tue 14.9.2021 at 10:13 As you can see from the above mentioned, Bentley Systems didn't even had serious intention to hire me. (name redacted) said at the interview that they will have the second round of interviews, so it takes their decision making till the end of this month (September). Finally, in the evening today on Tuesday 14.9.2021 at 17:12 I received a rejection email from Bentley Systems. It's remarkable that I received their rejection email just after one (1) day after the job interview. The company held my job interview next door with the Finnish prostitutes with an idea to trash me.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
|
Findings and Conclusions:
Section 85 A (1) of the Employment Equality Acts provides as follows: “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”. In the instant case the legal burden of proof is on Mr Petramaa in the first instance to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the ground of age and sexual orientation. It is only if he establishes this prima facie claim that the legal burden of proof shifts to the Respondent. In Dr Teresa Mitchell v The Southern Health Board [2001] ELR 201 the Equality Tribunal considered the extent of the evidential burden which a claimant must discharge before a prima facie case of discrimination can be made out. It stated that the claimant must: “establish facts from which it may be presumed that the principal of equal treatment has not been applied to them. This indicates that a claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, the primary facts on which they rely in seeking to raise a presumption of unlawful discrimination. It is only if these primary facts are established to the satisfaction of the Court, and they are regarded by the Court as being of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of discrimination, then the onus shifts to the respondent to prove that there was no infringement of the principle of equal treatment”. In Melbury Developments Ltd. V Valpeters EDA /0917 the Labour Court, in considering allegations of discrimination on the ground of race, held as follows: - “Mere speculation or assertions, unsupported by evidence, cannot be elevated to a factual basis upon which an inference of discrimination can be drawn. Section 85A places the burden of establishing the primary facts fairly and squarely on the Complainant and the language of this provision admits of no exceptions to that evidential rule”. I note that Melbury Developments Ltd. V Valpeters EDA /0917 was a case of race discrimination however the findings of the Labour Court still apply to the instant case. Section 77 A of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 – 2015 reads as follows: (1) The Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission may dismiss a claim at any stage if of the opinion it has been made in bad faith or is frivolous, vexatious or misconceived or relates to a trivial matter.
|
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 77 A of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint.
I find that the complaint as presented is both frivolous and vexatious and pursuant to Section 77A of the Employment Equality Act I dismiss the claim in its entirety. |
Dated: 12th April 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan
Key Words:
Employment Equality Act 1998, section 77A. |