ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00050857
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Maria Czub | Catalyx |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Finn Keyes BL instructed by McInnes Dunne Murphy LLP |
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-00062337-002 | 18/03/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 10/06/2025 and 18/11/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 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:
On the first hearing date the Complainant appeared with her husband, Mr. Majchrzak and gave evidence on Oath, with the assistance of an Interpreter. On the second hearing date there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant.
The Respondent had a number of witnesses who were sworn in but did not preset any evidence where there was no appearance by the Complainant on the second hearing date. Detailed submissions were received from the Respondent. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was employed by the Respondent from 17 January 2020 until 17 May 2024, pursuant to a written contract of employment dated 6 May 2022. She worked as a Distribution Specialist at a customer’s site in Co. Dublin. It was her complaint that she was discriminated against on the grounds of civil status. The Complainant set out her evidence on the first hearing date. I am satisfied that the Complainant was served with notice of the second hearing date. I am also satisfied that the Complainant was given a fair opportunity to attend the second day of the hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent described itself as an engineering company specialising in the automation and optimisation of processes in the life sciences industry. The Respondent filed submissions and had witnesses available on both hearing dates in order to meet and fully defend the complaints initiated by the Complainant. On the second date where there was no appearance by the Complainant, an application was made to dismiss the complaint for want of prosecution where the claim has not been made, there was no discrimination within the meaning of the Employment Equality Act 1998 – 2015. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am satisfied that the Complainant was served with notice of the hearing date and was given every opportunity to have her case heard in a fair manner. Where the Complainant chose not to continue with the hearing, I must dismiss the complaint for want of prosecution. |
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.
I find the Complainant was not discriminated against by the Respondent. |
Dated: 17-02-26
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Key Words:
|