Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Yelyzaveta  Zanko

Sugardolls Cork Ltd

Representatives

Not present

 Des J. Kavanagh HR Consultancy Limited

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-00070596-001

06/04/2025

The Complainant is a Ukrainian national and was employed from October 2024 to April 2025 as a Nail Technician.  During her employment she was asked by her employer to attend their Salon in Wilton and while she attended their on occasion, she claimed to be stressed and traumatized by working in a Shopping Centre and that she was discriminated against due to her race as a result of being assigned to work at the Shopping Centre premises.

The Complainant, who has relocated back to Ukraine, was notified of the first Hearing and did not attend.  The Complainant had advised two days in advance of the Hearing she would be attending the Hearing. The Respondent, its Representative and several witnesses for the Respondent attended that  first remote Hearing. Soon after the Hearing the WRC received a communication from the Complainant stating that she could not attend the Hearing due to power issues as a result of the war where she was located. The Adjudicator considered this situation and liaised with the Complainant (and the Respondent) by email and offered the opportunity to have the matter decided upon, as allowed by law,  by written submissions only. The Complainant did not confirm or refuse this suggestion. The Adjudicator decided in the interest of fair procedure he would reconvene the Hearing. The Hearing was reconvened for March 2026 with adequate notice given to the Complainant who again did not attend and it was attended by the Respondent, its Representative and their witnesses. In advance of the March Hearing, the Respondent, who were conscious of the costs involved in preparing for the Hearing and due to the circumstances of the first Hearing, requested the WRC contact the Complaining to enquire would she be attending. The WRC did this a few days in advance of the Hearing and no reply was received from the Complainant. The Hearing opened on March 3rd and there was no attendance by the Complainant and no reply to attempts by telephone by the WRC to contact her. The Adjudicator waited a reasonable amount of time at the start of the Hearing but the Complainant did not join the Hearing. On March 6th 2026 (three days after the second Hearing) the Complainant wrote to the WRC stating she had received the WRC letter (of invitation) but due to limitation of power she did not attend the Hearing and she asked that a Decision be made in her absence. A Ukrainian Interpreter was provided by the WRC for both Hearings.

Findings;

The Complainant was not present at either Hearing to give any evidence under oath or affirmation. The Respondent Representative denied,, through written submissions and at both Hearings that they had not discriminated against the Complainant. In these circumstances I find that the Complainant has not established a prima facie case of discrimination and was not discriminated against.

In an email to the WRC at the time of the first Hearing, the Complainant sought to have any Decision anonymised on the basis of her personal circumstances. I have considered this request and find that in the absence of the Complainant giving a verbal submission as to her grounds for anonymising the Decision and that none of her personal circumstance have been disclosed in this Decision, I have decided not to anonymise the Decision.

I find that the Complainant was not discriminated against.

Discrimination