ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00054778

Parties:

Complaint:

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  16/09/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015following 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 submitted a complaint that he was discriminated against when he was not appointed to a Head Chef position.  The original referral was made under the Equal Status Act 2000. It was agreed by both parties that the relevant legislation to this case is the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2015 and the referral reference is amended by agreement accordingly.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant explained that he had come to the conclusion that he was discriminated against when a colleague was appointed to a Head Chef position in May 2024.  He said that he was not informed of the vacancy and he was called to a meeting where he was not told of the purpose. 

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent runs two small hotels and in the context of streamlining the business and avoidance of waste and duplication, it was decided to appoint an Executive Head Chef.  The Complainant was told of this and there were advertisements clearly visible but the Complainant chose not to apply.

Findings and Conclusions:

Having addressed this matter under the Employment Equality Act 1998, I find as follows:

Despite being questioned by me as to what grounds the Complainant claimed he was discriminated against, he failed to cite any grounds except to say that he was discriminated against ‘generally’ when the position of Executive Head Chef was created.  He contended that he did not know about the job.  The information provided by the Respondent clearly refutes this contention.

The Employment Equality Act provides for redress being sought under 9 grounds, none of which the Complainant relied upon to ground his claim.

Further, it is long established that mere supposition of discrimination is not sufficient to bring forward a complaint:

Section 85A of the Act provides that the burden of proof is first of all on the Complainant to establish facts from which an inference of discrimination may be made.  This is known as ‘prima facie’.

In Elephant Haulage Ltd v Garbacevs The Labour Court stressed that facts based on credible evidence were necessary to prove a prima facie case of discrimination and that “mere speculation or assertions, unsupported by evidence, cannot be elevated to a factual basis upon which an inference of discrimination can be drawn.”  The Court observed that the language of Section 85A admitted of no exceptions to the evidential rule laid down.

I find that as the Complainant has neither cited grounds on which his complaint is made and nor has he established a prima facie case, his claim of discrimination is not well founded.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

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.

Based on the findings and reasons above, I have decided that this complaint is not well founded.

Dated:   20/11/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Key Words: