ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00050935
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Pavel Konosonok | Minister For Social Protection |
Representatives | Linda Rodgers | Mark Rodgers BL instructed by Emmet Hayes of the Chief State Solicitor's Office |
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-00062451-001 | 20/03/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 22/09/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000, 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
On the morning of the hearing of the 22nd of September 2025 the Complainant requested a postponement of the hearing and he had only found out about the hearing the night before when he saw an email from the WRC dated the 16th of September 2025 in his spam folder and his representative Ms Linda Rodgers was party to proceedings in Galway Circuit Court and as such unavailable.
The Complainant identified a postal address with his complaints when he submitted them in March 2024, however letters sent to that address were returned to the WRC. The WRC emailed the Complainant as far back as July 2024 to address this but he failed to reply to these emails.
Any failure as to the Complainant being on notice was down to his failure to provide the WRC with a means to contact him. Previously the Complainant has also failed to appear in separate WRC cases ADJ-00049051, ADJ-00049053, ADJ-00049055 and ADJ-00034921 against different Respondents. There was also a general lack of clarity associated with the Complainant case and as such I determined that it was best to proceed and reserve my position as to whether any adjournment would be required at a later point in the hearing.
I invited the Complainant to make written submissions replying to the Respondent submissions by the 27th of October 2025 which were received and reviewed.
Background:
The Complainant was in receipt of a social welfare payment by bank transfer until in September 2023 he was notified that his social welfare payment would be made via post office collection going forward.
The Complainant was directed to Athlone Post Office and payment by bank transfer ceased. The Complainant submits that this resulted in him becoming homeless and having to eat from bins. He declined to answer when asked why he did not collect the payment from Athlone Post office.
He has alleged that the Respondent and three other Respondents have discriminated against him on the basis of his sexual orientation, his family status, his civil status, his age, his race, his membership of the travelling community, his disability and religious belief. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant addressed the hearing but refused to give evidence under affirmation or oath. He outlined that he had a general right to be paid his social welfare payments however he chose. When I asked him how this decision related to a protected ground and which ones he was pursuing he was clear that he was pursuing all protected grounds outlined in his complaint form. From his submissions I understand the Complainant to be married and an Irish citizen but I do not have any further information about his status under the other grounds he has cited. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Eoin Power, Assistant Principle Officer, Department of Social Welfare gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent. The Department of Social Protection had a policy of normally paying jobseekers by cash transfer. This was revised during the pandemic and payments were made by EFT. From 2022 they began reverting to in person payments. This was in no way targeted and was a widely applied policy to a major social welfare benefit. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Respondent raised a preliminary issue. Section 14 1.a.i of the Equal Status Act provides that nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting the taking of any action that is required by or under any enactment. Mr Rodgers outlined in submission that the manner of payment of social welfare payments is set out in SI 142 of 2007 Social Welfare (Consolidated Claims, Payments and Control) Regulations 2007. This states as follows: 192. (2) For the purposes of sub-article (1), benefit shall be paid— (a) subject to paragraph (b), by means of any one of the following methods as may be determined by the Minister in relation to any particular case or class of case: (i) by cash payable at a post office designated by the claimant, beneficiary or authorised person, as the case may be, or where the Minister considers it appropriate, at a post office designated by the Minister; (ii) by cheque; (iii) by electronic funds transfer to an account nominated by the claimant, beneficiary or authorised person, as the case may be, and which is of a type determined by the Minister to be appropriate, Or (b) where the circumstances so warrant, in such other manner as may be determined by the Minister to be appropriate. On the basis of the above the Respondent argues that the complaint should automatically fail. I disagree with the Respondent that Section 14 and SI 142 put this decision beyond the scope of this act and the jurisdiction of the WRC. The statute is permissive, in that it gave jurisdiction to the Minister to determine whether the Complainant could be paid by cash or EFT. It did not direct the Minister to only implement one method or another rather it gave the choice to the Minister. In the alternative the Respondent has submitted that the Complainant has failed to advance a prima facia case of discrimination. He declined to give evidence and submitted in general terms that some other people are being treated differently to him when in fact there was a move to have his class of benefit return to cash in person payments. On this point I do agree with the Respondent. The Complainant has failed to adequately outline how the Respondent’s decision to move his jobseekers payment to an in person payment at the post office was in any way related to his sexual orientation, his family status, his civil status, his age, his race, his membership of the travelling community and religious belief. |
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.
I find that the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 17-11-25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Key Words:
|