Case Number: DEC-E2012-046- Full Case Report. Equality Tribunal

• Court: Equality Tribunal
• Date: 01 April 2012
• Docket Number: DEC-E2012-046- Full Case Report

THE EQUALITY TRIBUNAL

EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS 1998-2008

Decision DEC - E2012-046

PARTIES

Inarts Vitols
(represented by Grogan and Associates)
-v-
Cara Hygiene Products Ltd
(represented by Bolger, White, Egan and Flanagan Solicitors)

File reference: EE/2009/844
Date of issue: 20th April 2012

Keywords: Employment Equality Act, Discrimination, Race, Conditions of Employment, Training, Discriminatory Dismissal, Non-attendance

Dispute

This dispute concerns a complaint by Inarts Vitols against Cara Hygiene Services trading as Cara Commercial Merchandising. The complainant, a Latvian National, alleges that he was discriminated against on the grounds of race in relation to his conditions of employment and training contrary to the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2011 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Acts']. He also claims that being made redundant was a discriminatory dismissal.

The complainant referred his complaint under the Acts to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 23rd November 2009. In accordance with his powers under Section 75 of the Act, the Director delegated the case on 30th March 2012 to me, Orlaith Mannion, an Equality Officer, for investigation, decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions under the Part VII of the Act. This is the date I commenced my investigation. Submissions were received from both parties and a Hearing was held on 18th April 2012 as required by Section 79 (1) of the Act.

The complainant's representative was notified, by registered post, of the Hearing. I am satisfied that Mr Grogan informed his client of the Hearing date. Mr Vitols did not attend the Hearing.

Decision

In the light of the foregoing, and in accordance with Section 79(6) of the Act, I issue the following decision:
As part of my investigation under Section 79 of the Act, I am obliged to hold a Hearing. I find that the complainant's failure to attend such a hearing was unreasonable in the circumstances and that any obligation under Section 79...