Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Liam  Hogan

Gsoc

Representatives

Immogene Schneidlebach-jones IRISH DISABLITY AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AID

Paul Gough Beauchamps

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000

CA-00060623-001

20/12/2023

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The respondent attended the hearing along with a representative.  The complainant’s representative attended the hearing; however, the complainant did not do so.

The complainant did not attend the hearing of this matter; the complainant’s representative was present.

The respondent and a representative attended the hearing.

The complainant’s representative was asked where the complainant was, she noted that she had sought a postponement in advance of the hearing enclosing documentation.  She noted that she had copied this to the respondent.  She stated that her client was unavailable to attend on medical grounds.

The WRC did not receive a request for postponement in advance of the hearing.  The respondent confirmed that it was not in receipt of documentation supporting the complainant’s request for a postponement.

The complainant’s representative was asked to forward the documentation support the purported postponement request.  She indicated that she was unable to comply at the hearing but could provide the documentation within 24 hours.

The Adjudication officer stated that he would consider the documentation in support of an adjournment request if it was received within 24 hours.  He also indicated to the hearing that if the documentation was not forthcoming or did not certify the complainant’s inability to attend on medical grounds, the matter would be treated as a ‘no-show’ on the part of the complainant.

Documentation of a medical nature was received within 24 hours, however it did not certify the complainant’s inability to attend the hearing on medical grounds.  In the circumstances, the matter is being treated non-attendance on the part of the complainant.

As the complainant did not attend the hearing of this matter, no evidence was presented to me in support of this claim.  I am satisfied that the complainant was on notice of the details of the hearing. The complainant has offered no medical certificate indicating that he was unable to attend the hearing.

Section 38A of the Act deals with the Burden of Proof and states as follows:

38A.—(1) 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.

Having regard to the nonattendance of the complaint, I find that the complaint has not established facts from which it may be presumed that prohibited conduct has occurred.

Accordingly, I find that that no contravention of the Act has been established.

Having regard to the nonattendance of the complainant at the hearing of these complaint, my decision is that no contravention of the Act has been established

Equal Status Act – nonattendance of complainant – presumption that prohibited conduct occurred not established – no contravention of the Act