ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00035615
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Joe Butler | Dennehy Commercials Dennehy Commercials |
Representatives | No Show | David Dennehy |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00046732-001 | 18/10/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 25/01/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000following the referral of the complaint 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:
The Complainant alleged that he was discriminated on the ground of disability on or about the 20th of August 2021 at the Respondent’s premises who provides a service as defined under the Act, arising from his exemption not to wear a face mask. He alleges the conduct of the Respondent was offensive and unreasonable. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant failed to attend at the hearing. The Complainant did contact the Commission seeking a late postponement because a relative was seriously ill. The request was denied in the absence of supporting documentation pre the hearing. The Complainant could have attended at the hearing to make the application to the Adjudicator and failed to exercise that right. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent attended at the hearing and was ready to present their case. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am satisfied that the Complainant was notified of the date and time of the hearing by remote platform. The Complainant was refused a late postponement in line with fair procedures that a request at a late stage should be supported with relevant documentation. The Complainant could also have attended the remote hearing in person and to have made that application to the Adjudication Officer. However, the Complainant has written to the Commission stating that he wishes no further correspondence from the Commission on this matter. The Complainant wrote to the Commission stating that the decision not to postpone was unfair as it was not possible to obtain documentation as requested. There may have been mitigating factors; however, both parties have the right to be heard. A balance must be struck between the right to be heard and request a postponement with the right of the Respondent to defend the claim brought against them. A late request for a postponement must allow the other party also to reply so that a balanced and fair decision on the application can be made. As the Complainant has not made out his case as he did not attend at the hearing, and the Respondent was in attendance to rebut the allegations being made against them, I must find that the Respondent has not engaged in prohibited conduct and I dismiss the complaint. |
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.
As the Complainant has not made out his case as he did not attend at the hearing, and the Respondent was in attendance to rebut the allegations being made against them, I must find that the Respondent has not engaged in prohibited conduct and I dismiss the complaint. |
Dated: 02/03/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Key Words:
No show |