ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057836
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Makarios Michailidis | Grappling Industries Corp Grappling Industries Dublin |
Representatives | Michail Michailidis | Company Manager |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00070168-001 | 21/03/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 03/10/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, and Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000, following 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.
In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th of April 2021 the Parties were informed in advance that the Hearing would normally be in Public, Testimony under Oath or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for.
The required Affirmation / Oath was administered to all witnesses present. The legal peril of committing Perjury was explained to all parties.
The issue of anonymisation in the published finding of the WRC was considered by the Parties but not deemed necessary.
Background:
The issue in contention concerned an Equal Status complaint on Race, Age, Provision of Services, Harassment and Direct Discrimination against the Respondent Sporting Organisation. The complaint was directly related to the Organisation of a Sporting Competition on the 24thSeptember 2024. |
Opening Issues – Disruptive Behaviour.
At the Opening of the Hearing on the 3rd October 2025 the representative of the Complainant engaged in a very disruptive loud verbal manner. Despite efforts by the Adjudication Officer to proceed it proved impossible and the Adjudication Officer was forced to physically withdraw.
The Representatives of the Respondents were present in the Hearing room as was a member of the Public. The member of the Public was an Officer from the Citizens Advice Service on a Training exercise regarding Adjudication Hearings. She also, unsuccessfully, asked the Complainant to allow the Adjudication Officer to begin the Hearing. The WRC Facility/Services Officer also entered and asked the Complainant to stop shouting as it was causing upset to other Persons waiting at Reception.
Despite allowing, since the date of the Hearing, a considerable period of grace (during which time it is understood that the Complainant may have communicated with the WRC Director General) no progress on the case has been possible. A letter was issued from the Adjudication Officer on the 4th February 2026 indicting that he was considering invoking Section 42 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in relation to the cases. No reply was received.
Accordingly, the case, at his stage, must be deemed Legally Not Properly Founded and considered Not Successful.
The Adjudication Officer notes as precedent, regarding Disruptive Behaviour at Hearings ,the High Court Judgement of Justice Bolger in the case of Ammi Burke v The WRC and Arthur Cox LLP2022/535 JR
Findings and Conclusions:
The case is Deemed Legally Not properly Founded. It Is not successful. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions of the cited Acts.
CA: 00070168-001
The complaint is deemed legally Not Properly Founded and is Unsuccessful
Dated: 15th of May 2026.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Key Words:
Equal Status, Disruptive Behaviour. |