Case Number: DEC-E2012-021- Full Case Report. Equality Tribunal

• Docket Number: DEC-E2012-021- Full Case Report
• Date: 01 February 2012
• Court: Equality Tribunal

THE EQUALITY TRIBUNAL EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS 1998 to 2011

Decision DEC - E2012 - 021

PARTIES

Mr Pawel Siuda
(represented by Richard Grogan and Associates)

and

Sharkey Duffy Ltd

File Reference: EE/2009/923
Date of Issue: 23rd February, 2012

Headnotes: Employment Equality Acts, - Section 3(2)(1), Race - Conditions of Employment, Seciton 8(1)(b) - Hypothetical Comparator

1. Dispute

1.1. This case concerns a complaint by Mr Pawel Siuda (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant") that he was discriminated against by Sharkey Duffy Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent") on the ground of race, contrary to section 6(2)(h) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 to 2008 ("the Acts"), in relation to (i) conditions of employment, (ii) training and (ii) dismissal, contrary to Section 8(1)(b), 8(1)(c) and 8(6)(c) respectively of the Acts.

2. Background

2.1. On 10th December, 2009, the complainant referred a complaint under the Acts to the Director of the Equality Tribunal alleging that the respondent had discriminated against him on the ground of race.

2.2. Written submissions were received from the complainant but not from the respondent. On 18th November, 2011, in accordance with his powers under section 75 of the Acts, the Director delegated the case to me, Gary O'Doherty, an Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions under Part VII of the Acts, on which date my investigation commenced. A hearing of the complaint was held on 7th December, 2011.

2.3. The complainant was in attendance at the hearing. The respondent was not present. The notice of hearing to it had been returned marked "unknown at this address". When this was notified to the complainant's representative, they wrote back to inform the Tribunal that the address to which the notice had been sent was the company's registered postal address according to the Companies Registration Office. As the notification of the Hearing had been posted to the respondent at its registered address, I was of the opinion that the Tribunal had complied with the relevant provisions of the Interpretation Acts as regards serving notice on the respondent of the Hearing arrangements and had made all reasonable efforts to effect such service . Therefore, I proceeded with the Hearing in the absence of the respondent.

3. Summary of the Complainant's case

3.1. The complainant stated that he was a Polish national who was employed as a labourer by the employer between February/March 2009 and November 2009. He said that he was told that he would be paid €100 per day (net) and would have to work from 8 to 5 p.m. but stated that he did not receive a contract of employment. He stated that he did not receive any health and safety documentation and had no idea whether any other workers received same. He stated that there were signs up in his workplace and that he understood them. He said that he did not receive any training from the respondent but that he did not think anyone else did either. The complainant also stated that he was not joined in the workers pay and pensions scheme when he was entitled to be so included. He said that he understood instruction in English and did not need an interpreter at any point.

3.2. The complainant stated that he had not been paid the amount of money he was told he would be paid. He said that tax had been taken from his wages even though he knew he was not paid enough to be liable for tax and he said that when he inquired about this with the...