ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00054133
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Adrian Caulfield | The Courts Service of Ireland |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives |
| Mr. Darran Brennan, Mason Hayes & Curran |
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-00066110-001 | 13/09/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 20/05/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patricia Owens
Procedure:
On 13 September 2024 the Complainant referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to Section 21 of the Equal Status Act, 2000. In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000, following the referral of the case to me by the Director General a hearing was convened on 20 May 2025 to afford the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present any evidence the parties deemed relevant.
This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/2020, which designate the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing.
There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Complainant at the hearing. In addition to his complaint form, the Complainant had provided copies of the relevant ES1 and ES2 forms and other relevant documentation.
The Respondent was represented at the hearing by Mr. Darran Brenna, Senior Associate, Mason Hayes & Curran. The Respondent provided a detailed submission in advance of the hearing.
Background:
The Complainant alleged that he was discriminated against by the Respondent on the grounds of gender, civil status, family status, religion, age, disability, race and housing assistance and that the Respondent failed to give him “reasonable accommodation” for a disability in relation to the provision of goods and services. He submitted that the discrimination first occurred on 11 May 2022 and that the last occurrence was 1 July 2024. The Respondent is public body. The Respondent denied the allegations set out in the complaint.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Complainant at the hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent was present and prepared to outline its’ position at the hearing but in the context that there was no Complainant present to move the complaint this proved unnecessary. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Although the Respondent was present on the day of the hearing, there was no attendance by or on behalf of the Complainant. On the day of the hearing the Complainant’s attendance was awaited for in excess of 20 and I allowed 7 days from the day of hearing for the Complainant to make contact with the WRC post hearing to explain his absence, before finalising this decision. No contact was made. I noted that the correspondence containing the arrangements for the hearing was sent by the WRC to the home address provided by the Complainant on his complaint form. I noted that this correspondence was returned by An Post and marked as “Gone Away”. I noted that the WRC had previously been contacted by the Complainant by email and mobile phone number and that the WRC had retained those contact details on record. I further noted that the WRC had attempted to make contact with the Complainant in advance of the hearing by phone and by email but received no response to the email and received a message that the phone number was “no longer in use”. It is clear that it is the responsibility of parties to a complaint to ensure that they provide the WRC with any change of contact address and there is no evidence that this was done in the instant case. In the absence of any explanation for the Complainant’s non-attendance, and in the context that I am satisfied that all reasonable efforts were made to inform the said Complainant of the arrangements for the hearing, as the Complainant was not present on the day to move his complaint, I must conclude that the within complaint is not well-founded. |
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.
For the reasons outlined above I have found that this complaint is not well founded, and I decide accordingly. |
Dated: 04/06/2025.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patricia Owens
Key Words:
Equal status Act, |