Case Number: DEC-E2012-012- Full Case Report. Equality Tribunal

CourtEquality Tribunal
Date01 February 2012
Docket NumberDEC-E2012-012- Full Case Report
The Equality Tribunal Employment Equality Acts 2000 to 2011 EQUALITY OFFICER'S DECISION
NO: DEC-E2012-012
Parties Marcin Roszkiewicz
(Represented by Grogan and Associates Solicitors)


Walkinstown Auto Services Limited

File Reference No. EE/2009/938
Date of Issue: 3 February 2012

Employment Equality Acts -Discriminatory treatment - Conditions of employment - Training - Discriminatory dismissal - Race- Prima Facie Case

1. Dispute and delegation

1.1 This dispute concerns a claim by Mr. Marcin Roszkiewicz (hereafter "the complainant") that he was subjected to discriminatory treatment and discriminatorily dismissed by Walkinstown Auto Services Limited (hereafter "the respondent") on the grounds of his race. The complainant submitted that the dismissal occurred on 27 September 2009.

1.2 The complainant referred a claim of discrimination to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 18 December 2009 under the Employment Equality Acts.
On 6 December 2010, in accordance with his powers under section 75 of the Acts, the Director then delegated the case to Tara Coogan- an Equality Officer - for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part VII of the Acts on which date my investigation commenced. As required by Section 79(1) and as part of my investigation, I proceeded to hearing on 16 December 2011. Additional documents, as agreed at the hearing, were received on 10 January 2012. Final comments were received on 25 January 2012.

2. Preliminary issue

2.1. The complainant relied on a letter on the respondent company letterhead that stated that the complainant was an employee. He stated that he had received the letter from the respondent's named partner as he needed it for his landlord. The complainant submitted that he only discovered after his dismissal upon enquiring with the Revenue Commissioners that he had not been legally employed by the respondent.

2.2. The complainant recognised the respondent at the hearing and claimed that he had been employed by him. The complainant provided his diary to the investigation that showed that he had worked both nights and days. The complainant correctly named the respondent's manager and other staff. He was also able to provide texts messages linked to employment matters that the respondent acknowledged where sent from his partner's phone. The respondent stated that his partner had sent these text messages as a favour to the person who had hired the garage.

2.3. The respondent vehemently denied that it had ever employed the complainant. The respondent submitted that he had been absent for most of the material time working elsewhere and that he had sub-contracted the garage to a named Polish individual who operated from there between 22.00 - 06.00 hours. A copy of agreement concerning an arrangement - including a responsibility concerning staffing - between the respondent and a named individual was forwarded to the investigation

2.4. The respondent submitted that there had been a break in the respondent's office and, among other things the company letterheads had been stolen. He submitted that the letter layout was incorrect and that it was not his signature on it. The respondent referred to letter with his signature and noted that they were rather different. The complainant's representative did not accept this and noted that while his signature was a little different in the correspondence submitted to the investigation, some of the other...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT