ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00056581
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Martin Creed | Sky Handling Partner |
Representatives |
| Peter Dunlea Peninsula Business Services |
Complaint:
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-00068841-001 | 26/01/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 17/07/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 (as amended) a complaint has been referred to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission who has in turn deemed it appropriate that the Complaint be investigated with any appropriate and/or interested persons to be provided with an opportunity of being heard. In these circumstances and following a referral by the said Director General, of this matter to the Adjudication services, I can confirm that I am an Adjudicator appointed for this purpose (and/or an Equality Officer so appointed). I confirm I have fulfilled my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint. I have additionally and where appropriate heard the oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and have taken account of the evidence tendered in the course of the hearing as well as any written submissions disclosed in advance of the hearing (and opened up in the course of the hearing).
Where a person believes they have been discriminated against on one of the nine recognised grounds or in any other way has been treated unlawfully under the Employment Equality Acts they must write to the party that they believe has treated them unlawfully using the EE2 form asking for relevant information to determine their course of action. The proposed Respondent may reply by way of form EE3.
The Complainant herein has referred a matter for adjudication as provided for under Section 77 of the 1998 Act (as amended). In particular the Complainant (as set out in her Workplace Relations Complaint Form dated 20th of May 2019) seeks redress from the Respondent in circumstances where he claims his Employer behaved unlawfully and discriminated against him in the course of his employment wherein he says that he was treated less favourably (in the application of an in-house work sharing scheme) than another person has or would have been treated in a comparable situation on the grounds of his Family Status (as detailed in Section 6 of the 1998 Act (as amended)).
The Operative Section is Section 6 of the Employment Equality Act 1998 where :-
Sub Section 6 (1) For the purpose of this Act…discrimination shall be taken to occur where… a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) (the “discriminatory grounds”)…..
Section 6 (2) As between any 2 persons the discriminatory grounds .. are…
(c) That one has a family status and the other does not (the “family status ground”)…
In the event that the Complainant is successful it is open to me to make an award of compensation and /or give direction on a course of action which might eliminate such an occurrence in the future (per Section 82 of the 1998 Employment Equality Act).
Background:
This hearing was to be conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021)the hearing was to be conducted in recognition of the fact that the proceedings constitute the administration of Justice. It was therefore open to members of the public to attend this hearing. Had evidence been given it would have been in compliance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 which came into effect on the 29th of July 2021, and which said legislation accommodates situations where there is the potential for a serious and direct conflict in the evidence between the parties to a complaint. In such circumstances, an oath or an affirmation may be required to be administered to any person giving evidence before me. It is noted that the giving of false statements or evidence is an offence. The Complaint herein was brought to the attention of the WRC on the 26th of January 2025 by way of a workplace relations complaint form.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend. I am satisfied that the Complainant was notified of the date, time and venue for this hearing by a letter sent from the WRC - dated the 26th of January 2023 - and sent to the address provided by the Complainant on the workplace relations complaint form. The Complainant did not attend. I am satisfied that the Complainant was notified of the date, time and venue for this hearing by a letter sent from the WRC - dated the 30th of May 2025 - and emailed to the email address provided by the Complainant on the workplace relations complaint form. The Complainant had specifically agreed to communication by electronic means when filling out his complaint form. From the Complaint form provided, I have discerned that the Complainant seeks to establish that he was discriminated against by reason of his family status as a father of small children. The Complainant asserts that his constructive dismissal was brought about by reason of the discriminatory treatment by the Respondent employer. I understand that the Respondent intended defending the within complaint.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent had full representation at this hearing. The Respondent entity was also represented by a number of witnesses who made themselves available to speak to the Respondent’s position. The Respondent had provided me with a comprehensive submission on the 9th of July 2025. The Respondent rejects that there has been discrimination and asserts that the Complainant left of his own volition. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant did not attend to give evidence on his own behalf. |
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.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 CA-00068841-001 - The complaint herein fails in circumstances where the Complainant did not attend, and did not make a case of discrimination contrary to the Employment Equality Acts.
|
Dated: 5th September 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|