ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00056599
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Martina Sherlock | Omniplex Cinema Ltd |
Representatives | Not present/not represented | Eoin O Connor BL instructed by Powderly Solicitors LLP |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 81E of the Pensions Act, 1990 as amended by the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004 | CA-00062043-001 | 01/03/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00062043-002 | 01/03/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 20/04/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th of April 2021 the Parties were informed in advance that the Hearing would be in Public, Testimony under Oath or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for. The Hearing too place completely in public
Background:
The Complainant submitted a complaint that she was discriminated against by the Respondent on the basis a staff member of the Respondent entered the Cinema Hall and alleged that not all customers with the Complainant had tickets when she and her family members took their seats for the film. The Complainant is a member of the Traveller community and alleged she was discriminated against because members of the Respondent staff dealt with the issue differently, and in public, because she was a member of the Traveller community. The Complainant made no mention in her complaint form of any detail of a complaint under the Pensions Act (the Complainant just ticked the complaint box under the Act) and was written to by the WRC in advance of the Hearing to set out her complaint under the Pensions Act but no reply was received from the Complainant at the time of the Hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission by Martina Sherlock on March 1st 2024 alleging that the Respondent contravened the provisions of the Pensions Act 1990 (as amended) and the Equal Status Act 2000 in relation to her. The said complaints were referred to me for investigation. A Hearing for that purpose was held on April 20th 2026. The Complainant was notified of the Hearing on February 16th 2026. Two Hours before the Hearing the Complainant sent an email to the WRC stating, due to unforeseen circumstances, she would like to reschedule the Hearing. No details of the actual unforeseen circumstances were provided. The Complainant was sent an email informing her, due to the late request, she had to complete a request for adjournment form and the Complainant replied, by email, that she did not have the facility to do this. The Complainant was then informed she must attend the Hearing and explain the reasons for her late request, seek an adjournment and that adjournments would only be granted in exceptional circumstances. The Complainant was specifically informed ‘Postponements’ are sought in advance of the hearing date. An application made on the day of the hearing is referred to as an ‘adjournment’ application. An adjournment application is subject to the “exceptional circumstances and substantial reasons” test and, further, an applicant must set out why a postponement request was not made in advance instead.“ The Complainant did not attend the Hearing. Three of the Respondent staff and its legal Representatives attended the Hearing. I am satisfied that the said Complainant was informed in writing of the date, time and method at which the Hearing to investigate the complaint would be held. In the above circumstances and where no detail at all was offered for the Complainants non attendance and no appearance was made at the Hearing by the Complainant (or on her behalf) to request an adjournment and in the absence of any evidence to the support the complaints having been adduced before me, I must conclude that the within complaints are not well-founded and I decide accordingly.
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. I find the complaint under the Equal Status Act 2000 not well founded. CA-00062043-002 Part VII of the Pensions Acts, 1990 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Part. I find the complaint not well founded. CA-00062043-001
|
Dated: 23/04/26
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien
Key Words:
Equal status |