ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00064844
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Marios Petelis | Yeeros Ltd |
Representatives |
| Peter Dunlea Peninsula Business Services |
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-00077262-001 | 06/11/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 15/06/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patricia Owens
Procedure:
On 6 November 2025 the Complainant referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to Section 21 of the Equal Status Act, 2000. Following the referral of the case to me by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission, a hearing was convened on 16 June 2026 to afford the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present any evidence the parties deemed relevant.
There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Complainant at the hearing.
The Respondent was represented at the hearing by Mr. P. Dunlea, Penninsula. Ms. S Villalba and Ms. H Smith also attended on behalf of the Respondent.
Background:
The Complainant alleged that he was directly discriminated against by the Respondent on the grounds of civil status, and race and that he was harassed by the Respondent. He submitted that the discrimination first occurred on 11 October 2025 and that the last occurrence was 2 November 2025.
The Respondent operates in the Accommodation and Food services sector. The Respondent denied the allegation in its entirety.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Complainant at the hearing.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent provided a detailed submission to the WRC and was present and prepared to defend its’ position at the hearing. However, in the context that there was no Complainant present to move the complaint this proved unnecessary.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
Although the Respondent was present on the day of the hearing, there was no attendance by or on behalf of the Complainant.
On the day of the hearing the Complainant’s attendance was awaited for in excess of 20 minutes and I allowed in excess of 7 days from the day of hearing for the Complainant to make contact with the WRC post hearing to explain his absence, before finalising this decision. No contact was made.
I noted that the correspondence containing the arrangements for the hearing was sent by the WRC to the home address provided by the Complainant on his complaint form. I noted that all correspondence regarding arrangements for the hearing had been sent by the WRC to the address provided by the Complainant on his complaint form. In addition, I noted that the notice of the hearing had also been sent to the email address provided by him. In the absence of any explanation for the Complainant’s non-attendance, and in the context that I am satisfied that all reasonable efforts were made to inform the said Complainant of the arrangements for the hearing, as the Complainant was not present on the day to move his complaint, I must conclude that the within complaint is not well-founded.
|
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.
For the reasons outlined above I have found that this complaint is not well founded and I decide accordingly.
|
Dated: 16-07-2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patricia Owens
Key Words:
Discrimination on ground of race and civil status, harassment, Complainant non attendance |