ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00047820
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Gediminas Gvazdauskas | CPL Healthcare Limited |
Representatives | Nicola Dowling Williams Solicitors | Mark Comerford of IBEC |
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-00058921-001 | 05/10/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 16/01/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, following 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.
When the Complainant filed a complaint of discrimination he named the HSE and, in an attempt to join the Respondent, gave their address and contact information. When that case was first called to hearing the HSE were not on notice but the Respondent did attend and consented to an amendment of the claim and their being named separately under this case number. ADJ-00042605 and this case were ultimately heard together and the evidence produced in both cases were taken into account in both decisions.
Background:
The Complainant submitted a complaint of discrimination on the grounds of race against both the HSE and CPL in relation to a job competition he participated in.
It was accepted by the HSE and the Complainant that the HSE set the criteria and was the potential employer for the purposes of this act. CPL’s role was limited to administering the HSE’s recruitment campaign. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant does not allege that the Respondent was the prospective employer in the job application process he alleges was discriminatory. His allegation is one of indirect discrimination rather than proactive and conscious discrimination. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Mr Comerford made oral and written submissions on behalf of CPL. They submit they administered the HSE’s recruitment campaign fairly and applied the criteria set by the HSE. When the Complainant failed to meet the criteria he was not offered the job. The Complainant appealed this decision to remove him from the panel. Ms Niamh Ni Fhionnlaoich gave evidence under affirmation as to the appeals process and the decision she made. The Complainant did not meet the eligibility criteria for the role he applied for and as such his appeal did not succeed. The appeal’s process does not engage with the underlying rationale for the eligibility criteria, these are set by the recruiting client. Ms Aralia Norris also gave evidence under affirmation. She is the Respondent’s associate director working in recruitment. The Respondent ensure compliance with the CPSA. This issue related to the NDLS driver’s statement did not, in her experience, come up before. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Respondent is not the employer for the purposes of this complaint. The Respondent in ADJ-00042605 is the employer for the purposes of this complaint. |
Decision:
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.
I find that the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 15th December 2025.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Key Words:
|