Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Nadine  Lattimore

 Mr. Mohammed Sayfur Rahman

Representatives

Self – represented

Did not attend.

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000

CA-00065317-001

12/07/2024

The complainant has submitted a complaint that she was discriminated against by the respondent on the grounds of disability on 20/4/2024 when staff at the respondent’s store impeded her access on 20/4/2024 by notifying her that she could not bring her guide dog into the store. The dog’s harness clearly identifies his accreditation to the Irish Guide Dogs for The Blind. She further contends that the respondent discriminated against her on the grounds of disability on 20/4/2024 when they failed to provide her with reasonable accommodation contrary to the provisions of the Equal Status Act.2000-2015 (“The Act”).

The complainant has a visual impairment.

She submitted this complaint to the WRC on 9/8/2024.

Incorrectly impleaded respondent.

The Company Registration Office records revealed that the correct name of the respondent was Mr Cuisine Ltd. and not Mr. Mohmmed Sayfur Rahman, the name entered on the complaint form.

The complainant states that she went to huge efforts to acquire the correct title of the respondent and was impeded in her efforts by staff in the store in which the discriminatory act took place and by the head office. Upon being informed at the hearing on the 3/12/2024 that she had submitted a complaint against an incorrect entity, the complainant asked the adjudicator to accept her request to amend the respondent’s title.

The complainant maintained at both hearings that even though the complaint forms contained incorrect details, the respondent knew of her complaint.

The respondent did not attend.

Incorrectly impleaded respondent

The complainant has requested that I agree to the amendment of the respondent’s title

The complaint form submitted to the WRC, Complaint ADJ 53389 – CA -00065313, named an incorrect entity, Mr. Mohammed Sayfur Rahman.  The correct title is Mr Cuisine Ltd.

The matter of correcting the respondent’s name was addressed in Auto Direct Ltd v Vasile Mateui, DWT1922. The Labour Court there stated,

“That party (the respondent) was fully aware of the Complainant’s complaints to the WRC. He knew precisely from whom the complaints were and to what the complaints referred. The respondent party has had a full opportunity to be heard and to answer those complaints. The Court is therefore equally satisfied that the employer will suffer no prejudice or injustice by its decision on this preliminary matter……. In arriving at this conclusion, the Court is also conscious of the High Court Judgment in O’Higgins -v- University College Dublin & Another (2013) 21 MCA wherein Mr Justice Hogan held:

        ‘’Even if the wrong party was, in fact, so named, no prejudice whatever was caused

           by  reason of that error (if, indeed, error it be)”’….

The Court continued as follows:

       “In these circumstances, for this Court to hold that the appeal was rendered void by

        reason of such a technical error would amount to a grossly disproportionate

         response and deprive the appellant of the substance of her constitutional right of

         access to the courts.”

The Court agreed to the amendment of the respondent’s name.

In the instant case, though the complainant would say that the respondent knew of the existence of the complaint, I find that the complaint was submitted to an incorrectly named entity, albeit at the address shared with the correct respondent. That being the case, the respondent cannot have been said to have been served notice and was not in a position to address or defend the complaint.

In  DWT1922 the key concern of the Court was that the employer

“will suffer no prejudice or injustice by its decision on this preliminary matter”

In the instant case, I could not conclude that the respondent will suffer no prejudice or injustice  were I agree to the complainant’s request to amend the name of the respondent.

I am unable to agree to the complainant’s request to amend the title of the respondent

I find that I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint.

I decide that I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint.

Incorrectly named respondent.