ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058263
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Jason Cleare | O Connor Woodwork Solutions |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Brian O’Connor, Director |
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-00070830-001 | 15/04/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00070830-002 | 29/05/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00070830-003 | 29/05/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/03/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, and/or Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015, and/or Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000, 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.
Background:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. The complainant and two witnesses for the respondent undertook to give their evidence under affirmation. At the completion of the hearing, I took the time to review all the oral evidence together with the written submissions made by the parties. The respective positions of the parties are noted, and a broad outline of the evidence and cross examination is provided. I am not required to provide a line-by-line assessment of the evidence and submissions that I have rejected or deemed superfluous to the main findings. I am guided by the reasoning in Faulkner v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107 where it was held that a “…minute analysis or reasons are not required to be given by administrative tribunals...the duty on administrative tribunals to give reasons in their decisions is not a particularly onerous one. Only broad reasons need be given…”. At the start of the hearing the complainant confirmed that his complaints related to employment matters. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00070830-001 Equal Status At the start of the hearing the complainant confirmed that his complaints related to employment matters. CA-00070830-002 Employment Equality The complainant confirmed that his complaint revolved around receiving a payment for mileage and having gone through each of the grounds in the Act, confirmed that his complaint did not relate to any of the protected grounds. CA-00070830-003 Employment Equality The complainant confirmed that his complaint revolved around receiving a payment for mileage and having gone through each of the grounds in the Act, confirmed that his complaint did not relate to any of the protected grounds. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent confirmed that it employed the complainant directly after initially seeking his services as a sub-contractor. The respondent confirmed that he was hired to work at an agreed rate and noted that this did not include a mileage payment. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00070830-001 Equal Status As the complaint does not relate to the provision of goods or services, but rather to employment, I find that the complaint taken under the Equal Status Act is not well founded. CA-00070830-002 Employment Equality Having gone through each of the grounds outlined in the Act, the complainant confirmed that his complaint did not relate to any of the protected grounds. As the complainant confirmed in oral evidence that his complaint is not related to any of the protected grounds, I find that the complaint is not well founded. CA-00070830-003 Employment Equality Having gone through each of the grounds outlined in the Act, the complainant confirmed that his complaint did not relate to any of the protected grounds. As the complainant confirmed in oral evidence that his complaint is not related to any of the protected grounds, I find that the complaint is not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints 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.
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.
CA-00070830-001 Equal Status Having regard to the written and oral evidence provided by the complainant, my decision is that the complaint is not well founded. CA-00070830-002 Employment Equality Having regard to the written and oral evidence provided by the parties, my decision is that the complaint is not well founded. CA-00070830-003 Employment Equality Having regard to the written and oral evidence provided by the parties, my decision is that the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 07th of April 2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Equal Status – complaint relates to employment – not well founded – Employment Equality – complaint does not relate to protected grounds – complaint not well founded. |