Patrick Reilly (represented by Ms. Mary Honan, B.L., acting on instructions from the Equality Authority) V The Licensee, The Foxhunter Pub, Lucan, Dublin (represented by Mason Hayes Curran, Solicitors)
The complainant referred a claim to the Director of Equality Investigations under the Equal Status Act 2000. In accordance with her powers under section 75 of the Employment Equality Act 1998 and under the Equal Status Act 2000, the Director delegated the case to me, Dolores Kavanagh, an Equality Officer for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part III of the Equal Status Act.
1. Dispute
1.1 This dispute concerns a claim by Patrick Reilly that he was discriminated against by staff of the Foxhunter public house contrary to the Equal Status Act, 2000, on the grounds that he is a member of the Traveller community in that he was denied a service which is available to the public generally in the premises. The respondent denies discrimination and states that a genuine mistake occurred in which the function room sought by the complainant had been double booked.
2 Summary of Complainant's Case.
2.1 The complainant states that he booked the function room in the respondent's premises for 19 May, 2001 and paid the deposit which secures the room. When the bar manager recognised the complainant as a Traveller he tried to return the deposit to the complainant. The complainant was subsequently informed that an error had occurred and that the room had been double booked. The room was given to the other party for the date required by the complainant, despite the fact that the booking in question had not been logged and no deposit had been paid by the other party.
3. Summary of Respondent's Case
3.1 The respondent states that another function had been booked into the function room in question before the complainant booked it and had not been entered in the function room book. While the error was regretted it was nondiscriminatory and resulted from a genuine mistake.
4. Evidence of the Parties
4.1 Written submissions
Written submission by the Equality Authority, 1 July, 2002
The complainant, Mr. Reilly, went to the Foxhunter Public House on Sunday, 22 April 2001 with his brother-in-law to book a function room for 19 May, 2001. He spoke to Vanessa, the function manager. Mr. Reilly explained that he wanted a function room for 80-100 people. She confirmed that a room was available and a £200 deposit should be paid, Mr. Reilly did not have the money on him then but was advised there was no problem with the room and it's availability was confirmed to him. The catering manager explained to Mr. Reilly that a DJ came with the room and she also went through her catering details. She gave him the details about booking on a piece of paper and underlined her name. (copy submitted) Mr. Reilly returned to the Foxhunter on Tuesday 24 April 2001 circa 6 p.m. He was on his own and went to the bar and ordered a glass of orange. Mr. Reilly spoke to a man whom he later found out was the bar manager. Mr. Reilly asked for Vanessa and was told that she had gone home. Mr. Reilly explained the situation and said he was there to pay the deposit. The bar manager confirmed that the date was still available and that there had been a cancellation in the book for that date. He told Mr. Reilly that all he needed was the deposit. The bar manager went to get the function room appointments book. Mr. Reilly saw that there was a cancellation for 19 May, 2001. The manager wrote Mr. Reilly's details in the book including his name, address, details that it was a going away party and his telephone number. Mr. Reilly also signed something in the book. However, he is uncertain whether this was a contract or not. The manager took the £200 booking deposit and gave Mr. Reilly a receipt (copy submitted). Mr. Reilly put the receipt in his pocket and explained that he did not have all of the money for the DJ and the manager told him that was fine, that he just needed the £200 booking deposit.
Mr. Reilly asked the bar manager if he could see the room and the manager agreed and went with him. Mr. Reilly commented on the size of the room and asked whether it was big enough and was told that it was. The manager then asked him questions such as what he did, Written submission by the Equality Authority, 1 July, 2002 (continued) and what type of people would be coming to the function i.e. couples/children/groups of lads. Mr. Reilly answered these questions. After a conversation about the starting time of the function the manager left the room, came back and put Mr. Reilly's money down on the table. When Mr. Reilly queried this the manager told him that it was his deposit back. Mr. Reilly said that he did not want the deposit back and was happy with the room. The manager kept insisting that Mr. Reilly take the money but Mr. Reilly refused. The manager then made a comment like " I am going way over my head". The manager asked Mr. Reilly for the return of the receipt but he refused. He said he would come back again and see Vanessa with whom he had spoken on Sunday, 22 April 2001 and who had said that the room was available.
On Thursday, 26 April 2001 Mr. Reilly returned to the Foxhunter at approximately 3p.m. He spoke to Vanessa and told her that he wanted to pay the remaining balance of £275. Vanessa said that there was a problem. When Mr. Reilly asked what it was Vanessa said that the date of 19 May was not available. Mr. Reilly reminded her that when she was looking at the date on Sunday 22 April the date was available and when he came back on Tuesday it was still available and he had booked it at that time. Vanessa then said that it had been booked three months beforehand and when Mr. Reilly asked whether a deposit had been paid she paused and then said it did not matter, the room was booked. He told her he thought it was becoming a legal matter. She made a remark to the effect that "it does not have to come to this". He asked her if she could ask the people who booked it before him to change. She again said that it was booked three months ago and they had people coming from England. Vanessa also said that she would give him back his deposit. Again he refused to take it. He then picked two alternative nights, 18 May and 20 May, 2001 and they were also not available. Mr. Reilly then asked if she would arrange an alternative place for him for the same price and she said that she would get back to him ( which did not happen). She also said that she would get the manager to phone.
Later that evening at around 5.30 p.m. the manager phoned Mr. Reilly. He said that there was a problem with the booking and Mr. Reilly could not have the room. Mr. Reilly explained the circumstances and that he had booked the room for 19 may on Tuesday 24 April. He said that when he had spoken with Vanessa on Sunday 22 April the room was available. It was also available on Tuesday, 24 April when he had paid the deposit. The manager replied that Mr. Reilly could not get the room as people had booked it before him. The manager stated that although he had paid the £200 deposit but had not paid the £100 charge for the room. Mr. Reilly said that he knew nothing about this. The manager then asked Mr. Reilly who had told him that no deposit had been paid by the people who booked the room before him. Mr. Reilly told him that Vanessa had said this and the manager said that she was wrong. The manager then reiterated that the room was booked and they would send Mr. Reilly back his money. Mr. Reilly said that he did not want the money he wanted the room and there was no point in them having any further conversation. It is Mr. Reilly's contention that after the manager had given him the receipt he realised that Mr. Reilly was a member of the Traveller community. Mr. Reilly states that until he actually Written submission by the Equality Authority, 1 July, 2002 (continued) got the receipt for the booking deposit he was not very relaxed and he was "talking posh" . Mr. Reilly became relaxed once he had the receipt and at that point the manager realised that he was a Traveller. Mr. Reilly has been discriminated against often enough to know the reaction. The manager did not give him any explanation at the time for the sudden change of mind. It was not until he spoke to Vanessa on the Thursday that he was informed of an alleged other booking.
The above submission confirms an earlier written statement which was submitted in October, 2001 by Mr. Reilly, complainant.
Letter to Mr. Patrick Reilly dated 3rd July, 2001 from Declan Towey, Director/General Manager.
Mr. Sean Slattery took a booking from Mr. Reilly on Tuesday 24 April, 2001 for the function room. Sean is the manager of the Bar area. He dose not deal with function bookings. He deals with initial enquiries and passes them on to the Function Manageress, Vanessa Smith. Sean realised that there was another function booked in and he was not 100% sure if it had been cancelled. He told you to come back and see Vanessa who looks after all the functions the next day.
Mr. Reilly had paid a £200 refundable deposit. The £100 room hire charge had not been paid and the room hire contract had not been signed. Vanessa Smith called you the next day, Wednesday 25 April 2001 to explain that there was another function in the room already, but you insisted that it was cancelled. This other function went ahead on the 19 May, the night Mr. Reilly was seeking to have his function. Ms. Smith offered Mr. Reilly an alternative night but Mr. Reilly insisted that his party go ahead on that that night. It was at this stage that Declan Towey called Mr. Reilly in relation to his booking. Every effort was made to accommodate him but he insisted that his party would go ahead on that night. Again Mr. Towey explained to him that there was another function in. It was at this stage that Mr. Reilly told Mr. Towey that he was a Traveller and that he was discriminating against him. Mr. Towey was not aware of such a matter and it did not have any bearing on the booking. The only problem was that Mr. Towey had two groups of people looking for the function room on the same night. Mr. Towey offered Mr. Reilly his deposit back but he had refused it. (deposit attached to letter).
Letter from Mr. Frank Towey, Director, the Foxhunter, to Equality Tribunal dated 3rd October, 2001.
The Foxhunter had been serving Travellers since it opened. A senior member of the Traveller community (named) had been served in the premises for about seven years until he moved to another location.
In August 2001 there was a birthday party in the function room for a member of the Traveller community (named) which was attended by about 60 people, members of the Traveller community.
In July 2001 a christening function had been held in the function room by a member of the
Traveller community (named) and was attended by over 25 members of the Traveller community.
There have been scores of situations where individual Travellers or small groups of Travellers have been served in the Foxhunter on a regular basis. The Foxhunter is the nearest pub to the Ballyowen Lane Traveller halting site so we regularly get Travellers in the pub and the off-license.
Mr. Reilly was not discriminated against but he felt put out when the night he sought was already booked. He was already offered an alternative night for the function which he refused to accept.
Mr. Reilly had stated that he intended going to the Foxhunter on 19 May to see if another function was in the function room but Mr. Towey did not think that he turned up. Written statement dated 29th May 2002 from Vanessa Smith, Functions Manager On Sunday 22 April 2001 a man entered the restaurant at approx. 3pm It was very busy. The man enquired about a date for a function. The date was 19th May 2001. I checked the function book and there was an unconfirmed function for that date. I said I would check with the manager. I left to go to the bar and when we both returned he had gone, leaving no details.
The man returned on Tuesday 24 April 2001 and tried to book the room with Sean Slattery. He had told Sean he had spoken with me and that the room was available. At this point Sean was unsure as there was another booking in the book, but no deposit had been paid. The man gave Sean £200 for the room and asked to see the room. Sean showed him the room but said he would have to talk to myself and was to hold onto the deposit. At this stage no room hire contract had been signed and or room hire paid. The deposit paid is a standard refundable deposit which is refundable after all parties. The man left without his money and said he would call to see myself.
Written statement dated 29th May 2002 from Vanessa Smith, Functions Manager
(continued)
He called the next day. I met him at the "Snooty Bar" and explained that the room was double booked and that it was not available for that date. He got very aggressive towards me and immediately said it would become a legal matter. I offered him another date but he refused and also said I would try our other premises and he declined. I then offered him his money back but he refused. He left saying that it would be dealt with by his solicitors. I later received a phone call from an unknown person claiming to be a representative for him. He was enquiring why the room was not available. I explained my situation and during the course of the conversation he became agitated and was pressuring me into conceding that the Foxhunter was not interested in taking the function.
At this stage I told the man that I had done all that I could to help him and I would get the General Manager (Declan Towey) to contact him. That was the last conversation I had with this man who refused to give me his name. Declan Towey dealt with the situation from here on.
Reply from the Equality Authority to the written statement by Ms. Vanessa Smith
- The complainant states that he spoke for a few minutes with Ms. Vanessa Smith who gave him details in relation to the function room, including prices etc. She confirmed that the date was available and she did not mention the manager. Ms. Smith gave him written details of the function room and underlined her name.
- On 24 April the complainant spoke with Sean Slattery. The latter was not unsure and confirmed that the date was available. No deposit was paid for any other function on that night. The complainant paid the deposit and received a receipt from Mr. Slattery. It is the deposit that secures the room. Mr. Reilly had until 12th May to pay the room hire and D.J. Charges.
- The complainant denies that he got very aggressive. As he felt that the Foxhunter were discriminating against him he said that it would become a legal matter. He was not offered another date nor was he offered other premises by Ms. Smith. Rather he asked if the function room would be available for Friday 18th or Sunday 20th May. He also suggested that Ms. Smith try and arrange another premises.
- In Mr. Towey's letter to the complainant he states that Mr. Slattery does not deal with function bookings yet in written details provided to the complainant re: function bookings it says "contact Vanessa or Sean". At no point did Mr. Slattery refer to any other booking and he did not tell Mr. Reilly to come back and see Vanessa.
- It should be noted from Ms. Smith's statement that she refers to an unconfirmed function for that date . However it was initially explained to Mr. Reilly that the deposit must be paid to secure a booking. There can have been no booking as it states on the form from Foxhunter that the deposit is £200 and is to be paid on confirmation of booking and "room not booked until paid".
Written comments by Respondent to reply by the Equality Authority to Ms. Smith's statement. Mr. Reilly's statement is untrue. Vanessa's original statement is completely accurate. Declan Towey, General Manager returned with Vanessa to discuss the availability of 19th May, as there was another booking in on that date. He will state that there was nobody waiting for him when he returned with Vanessa to discuss the matter on Sunday, 22nd April. There is no denial that Mr. Reilly spoke with Mr. Slattery on 24th April and that he handed over £200 and was given a receipt for the money. Mr. Reilly is incorrect when he says the deposit secures the room. It is the deposit and a signed one page booking form that secures the room. As Mr. Reilly didn't sign the booking form there is no obligation on us to hire the room to him - legal or otherwise.
Mr. Reilly says he did not become aggressive. When Vanessa was speaking with Mr. Reilly senior barman Emmett O'Callaghan was working in the bar. He became concerned when he heard Mr. Reilly raise his voice in an aggressive and intimidating tone while talking with Vanessa. He moved over beside Vanessa to observe what was going on. Mr. O'Callaghan can give evidence of this.
There is a contradiction in Mr. Reilly's statement where he says -"he was not offered another date nor was he offered other premises by Ms. Smith, rather he asked if the function room would be available for Friday 18th or Sunday 20th May". In Mr. Reilly's reply to Ms. Smith's statement it states categorically that Mr. Reilly then asked her if she would arrange another place for him for the same price...!!
Mr. Reilly may not be awarae of the telephone call to Ms. Smith but it did take place and Ms. Smith reported it directly to me (Frank Towey). She said she felt intimidated and frightened by the manner of the conversation and the caller was trying to put pressure on her to say certain things relating to Mr. Reilly's booking.
Mr. Slattery only takes initial enquiries relating to function room bookings. It is Ms. Smith's primary responsibility but obviously when she is off then somebody else has to deal with the enquiries.
Written comments by Respondent to reply by the Equality Authority to Ms. Smith's statement. Mr. Slattery did tell Mr. Reilly to see Ms. Smith and obviously Mr. Reilly heeded this when he says in one of his replies "he said he would come back and see Vanessa to whom he had spoken on Sunday 22 April".
As Mr. Reilly did not sign up to the terms and conditions relating to bookings or hiring our function room it is a very moot point to be telling us how to treat our other bookings. Another party (named) booked the room and paid a deposit on 1 April, 2001 - (copy
"delivery docket" submitted as receipt). This should clear up the issue about there being a previous booking for 19th May.
Reference is made again to two functions that were held in the Foxhunter involving members of the Traveller community, (details submitted).
Submission by respondent dated 23 July, 2002
Mr. Reilly states that he went to the Foxhunter on Sunday 22nd April, 2001 with his brother-in-law to book the function for 19th May 2001.
Vanessa Smith says that nobody accompanied Mr. Reilly in the pub. She has no recollection of giving Mr. Reilly any details about making a booking and if Mr. Reilly is correct in claiming that he made a booking why is the booking form (strange that he had a booking form for a christening and not the hire of the function room) not filled in (a) either on the evening of the booking or (b) at any other time. Mr. Reilly is being very particular about how we take bookings and when a booking becomes valid yet we have no completed booking form from him. Whilst a booking deposit of £200 was taken from him and receipted this was refundable and not confirmation of a booking.
Mr. Reilly confirms that he returned to the Foxhunter on Tuesday 24th April at 6p.m. and met the bar manager Sean Slattery whose evening shift starts at 7.30pm. He claims that the bar manager wrote his details in the book, (in the mistaken belief that the function room was available) including his address and phone number - we have no telephone number for Mr. Reilly. Mr. Reilly then signed something in the book - we have nothing signed by him in the book (copy entry appended).
Mr. Reilly then asked Sean Slattery to show him the function room. It's the first time ever somebody booked the function room without seeing it first. After a general discussion on the proposed party Mr. Reilly asked to have the room from 6p.m Mr. Slattery explained to him that that it was only available from 8p.m Mr. Reilly stated that he had paid his £200 deposit and was entitled to have the room at 6p.m He became very agitated and determined in his manner. At this stage Sean Slattery went back to the office and returned with the deposit and referred Mr. Reilly to Vanessa Smith on the matter. Mr. Reilly in his statement dated 11 June 2001 mentions this discussion about the availability of the room at an earlier time than 8p.m Submission by respondent dated 23 July, 2002, (continued)
Mr. Reilly subsequently returned to the Foxhunter later in the week and met Vanessa with a view to paying the balance of the money for the function - £275. Vanessa explained that the date wasn't available and offered other available dates, which Mr. Reilly turned down. The function room had previously been booked by for a 40th birthday party but Mr. Reilly couldn't or wouldn't accept this. He was invited to come down on 19th May to see if it was booked but to the best of our knowledge he didn't arrive.
Mr. Reilly didn't ask Vanessa to arrange another place for him - she volunteered to ring our other premises to see if a room was available for 19th May but without any success. I am concerned about what games Mr. Reilly is playing when he says he was "talking posh" but then reverted to his normal speech. He claims to have been discriminated against often enough to know how people react to him. It seems to me that if he had been discriminated against in the past he may be capable of creating situations to lead one to believe that he is being discriminated against.
Submission by the Equality Authority 13 November, 2002, on behalf of the complainant Mr. Reilly was accompanied by his brother-in-law however he was seated and did not stand beside Mr. Reilly in his dealings with the staff of the Foxhunter. It is stated that Ms. Smith has no recollection of giving Mr. Reilly any details about making a booking, however she handed him a leaflet and underlined her name and telephone number. Mr. Reilly was attempting at this stage to find out if there was a room available and the details of the cost etc. He did not have any money on him and was not in a position to make a booking. It should be noted that the requirement is that £200 must be paid. It states in the leaflet given to Mr. Reilly that the £200 is to be paid on confirmation of booking and the "room not booked until paid". Also in the leaflet given to him by Vanessa the amount of £ 150 is crossed out and a new figure of £175 put in. Mr. Reilly is not aware as to why he was given a form for a christening however it contained the essential information which he needed to make a decision as to whether or not to book with the Foxhunter pub.
It is emphasised that Mr. Reilly did not attend on this night (22 April) to make a booking with the Foxhunter pub. He merely went in to make inquiries as to the availability of the rooms and the cost of hiring same. He cannot comment as to why no booking form was filled in. That was clearly the business of the Foxhunter pub to ensure that such a form was filled in when accepting Mr. Reilly's £200. He is also at a loss as to why they stated in the response that " while the deposit of £200 was taken from him and receipted, this was refundable and not confirmation of a booking" when this is clearly contrary to what it says on the leaflet details. Mr. Reilly told Ms. Smith he would return with the deposit and he was not told at any stage he needed to complete a booking form and was unaware of this requirement.
Submission by the Equality Authority, 13 November 2002, on behalf of complainant (continued)
Mr. Reilly returned to the Foxhunter pub after 6.00 pm (24 April) He did not know the name of the bar manager he met at that time.
The response refers to "the mistaken belief of the bar manager". It now appears that both the bar manager and Vanessa Smith are of the belief that in fact the room was not available. The response states that Mr. Reilly claims the bar manager wrote his details in the book. It is a fact that Mr. Reilly's details were written in the book and these details include his address and telephone number. It should be noted that Mr. Reilly was told by the Foxhunter that there was a cancellation.
This was the first time that Mr. Reilly has ever booked a function room and the fact that he did without seeing the room is totally irrelevant. It is correct that Mr. Reilly did ask if it would be possible to have the room at 7p.m. He denies he became agitated as set out in the response.
It is disputed that Ms. Smith offered other available dates. Mr. Reilly suggested two alternative nights namely the 18th and 20th and was told by Ms. Smith that they were not available. Mr. Reilly then asked if she would get another place for him for the same price and she said that she would get back to him. She never replied to him. Mr. Reilly is not aware whether or not Ms. Smith telephoned the other premises to see if it was available for 19th May as she never responded to Mr. Reilly. It should be noted that Mr. Reilly is a Traveller and as a Traveller has experienced discrimination on many occasions in the past. Obviously as a Traveller he would have experienced negative reactions to his identity. It is insulting, to say the least, to suggest that because he was discriminated against in the past he would be "capable of creating situations". It should be noted that one of the ways that Travellers are recognised is by their accent and if a Traveller has experienced a negative reaction to their accent they may wish to change their mode of speech so they are not recognised as a Traveller. It is a coping mechanism to deal with discrimination.
Ms. Smith did not at any stage state to Mr. Reilly that she would check with the manager. He said that in fact there was no problem with the room in terms of its availability and there was no mention that the function manager would have to talk to anyone else regarding the room's availability. It should be noted that the leaflet clearly states that the deposit of £200 secures a room. There is no reference to any booking contract. Mr. Reilly was not told by Mr. Slattery that booking the function room was depending on signing a particular booking form or indeed signing any form.
Mr. Reilly maintains that he did not become aggressive when speaking to Ms. Smith. There is no contradiction in Mr. Reilly's statement that he was not offered another date nor was heoffered another premises by Ms. Smith. It was he who asked if the function room would be available for another date. He was told it was not available. Mr. Reilly confirms that he did ask Ms. Smith if another function room could be made available and was told that no Submission by the Equality Authority 13 November, 2002, on behalf of complainant (continued) function rooms were available for the alternative dates and he also asked her to arrange another place for him at the other premises. Ms. Smith informed him that she would make inquiries and get back to him. He never heard from her. Mr. Reilly is not aware of a telephone call directly to Ms. Smith and cannot comment on the contents of same. If Mr. Slattery only takes initial inquiries why did he take the deposit for the date in question. The only reason why Mr. Reilly said he would come and speak to Ms. Smith is because Mr. Slattery accepted his deposit and tried to return it. If Mr. Reilly was asked to sign something he would gladly have done so. Mr. Reilly was told that all the Foxhunter needed was a deposit of £200 and he did not have to pay the rest of the money until the night of the event.
It should also be noted that the fact that two functions were held in the Foxhunter involving members of the Travelling community (dates supplied) does not mean that the Foxhunter did not discriminate with Mr. Reilly . It should be noted that theses events happened after Mr. Reilly made his complaint. It could be queried as to how the Foxhunter knew that either of the parties involved were Travellers. It should be noted that there was a note on the room hire to the other (named) individual "cancelled due to illness".
If the room was double booked why did the bar manager not give Mr. Reilly an explanation there and then. At no point in the previous correspondence was there any suggestion that Mr. Reilly's deposit was returned because he was insisting on having the room at 6p.m. In the respondent's letter of 3 July it stated that Mr. Slattery realised there was another function booked and he was not one hundred per cent sure that it had been cancelled. This was why Mr. Slattery asked Mr. Reilly to come back and see Vanessa. The Foxhunter seems to be changing the reason for the return of the booking fee ad appears to be alleging that Mr. Slattery tried to return the deposit because Mr. Reilly was agitated and determined in his manner. No such allegation was made previously.
4.2 Oral Evidence Presented at Hearing
4.2.1 Complainant's evidence
Mr. Patrick Reilly, complainant
Mr. Reilly confirmed the details submitted in writing by the Equality Authority on his behalf and in addition stated that:-
- He was clear in his recollection of speaking to Ms. Smith on Sunday 22 April 2001. She had given him the "Christening details form and had underlined her name and telephone number for him. She had also checked the functions book in his presence and had told him that there was a vacancy for 19th May.
- In the course of viewing the functions room with Mr. Slattery on Tuesday, 24th April he had requested the room for 7p.m on the evening of 19th May and was told that 8p.m was the standard time for functions to start. After a discussion on the matter Mr. Slattery had left the room and when he returned had placed the money for the deposit on a table and told him if he was not happy with the times he should take his money back.
- Mr. Slattery had also said "I'm in over my head here" and "I've made a mistake" and again told the complainant to take his money back.
- When the complainant returned on the following Thursday to pay the balance of the money for the function room Vanessa Smith had told him that the room had already been booked by a football team who had people travelling from England for a function and that they had booked three months earlier. ( While the football team had not been mentioned in any written submissions the complainant's representative provided details of an attendance on her client on 20 September, 2001 in which he stated to her he had been told that the double booking had been in respect of a football team).
- In a subsequent conversation with Declan Towey on the phone Mr. Towey had said that Ms. Smith could not have said anything about a football team.
- In his conversation with Mr. Slattery the complainant was not argumentative. He did not understand the finer points of what paying a deposit meant or what it entitled him to.
- When Ms. Smith informed him of the previous booking on the Thursday he had asked her whether a deposit had been paid by the football team and she had told him that no deposit had been paid.
- Mr. Reilly was upset because the room was being taken from him.
- Mr. Reilly confirmed that a member of the Clondalkin Traveller Development Group had called the Foxhunter on his behalf about the matter but he did not recall the details of the conversation. Mr. Reilly had sought assistance from the Group in relation to this matter.
- As a Traveller Mr. Reilly is used to being refused. There is something about Travellers that others recognise. In the course of his conversation with Mr. Slattery while viewing the function room he felt a change in attitude on Mr. Slattery's part which was very sudden. Mr. Reilly had been "talking posh" while dealing with Mr. Slattery and was not relaxed. When the deposit was paid by him he became more relaxed and reverted to his normal manner of speech.
- Mr. Reilly had never been to the Foxhunter prior to April, 2001. His brother-in-law lives in Lucan and had informed him that they had a function room in the premises.
- While Mr. Reilly accepts that mistakes do arise and that two functions cannot proceed in one function room on the one date but does not understand why the other function was not cancelled. He would expect that the person who paid the money for the deposit would get the room.
- Mr. Reilly did not accept that his attitude was inflexible. He was not offered alternative dates for his function and was told that Vanessa Smith would get back to him. She did not get back to him. He had asked for the room for either the day before or the day after 19th May and was told that the room was unavailable for those dates.
Ms. Catherine Joyce, representative from the Irish Traveller Movement.
Ms. Joyce explained that she was not present to give direct evidence on behalf of the complainant who was unknown to her, but rather to give the Tribunal information on the types of difficulties experienced by Travellers in gaining access to services etc. The Irish Traveller Movement (ITM) has a great deal of national and international experience in this regard and represents Travellers on the National Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturism (NCCRI) and are seeking to secure the rights of Travellers.
The two main forms of discrimination experienced by Travellers relate (i) to accommodation and (ii) negative discrimination whereby they are not given the same degree of access to services.
There are a number of ways in which Travellers are identified by others which include:-
- Their origins or location, i..e a recognisable address
- Their style of dress. Travellers have a particular dress code, for example male Travellers do not wear jackets or overcoats
- Women Travellers are recognised by the amount and type of jewellery that they wear
- Travellers are often recognised by their distinctive accent/pronunciation. (examples provided). It is often the case that a Traveller accent is recognised in the course of a conversation and this usually happens very quickly.
In summary there are a number of factors that identify Travellers to others and one factor or a combination of any number of them can identify a Traveller to others as such.
Ms. Joyce has never been to the Foxhunter personally . While she is from Blanchardstown her office is located in Temple Bar. She has heard of the Foxhunter in the context of hearing other Travellers say that they had had difficulty gaining access to the pub.
Ms. Joyce stated that it is not easier to identify women Travellers, that it is equally easy to identify either the men or the women, depending on circumstances and that it is not always easier to identify groups of Travellers as compared to individuals. For example, Ms. Joyce stated that while she had no contact with the complainant she was able, without any difficulty, to identify him as a Traveller during a recess in the Hearing.
Ms. Joyce stated that many service providers such as hotels, pubs etc had a degree of experience in dealing with Travellers and had a degree of information and expectation in relation to Travellers which was often based on stereotypes.
4.2.2 Respondent's Evidence
Mr. Declan Towey, General Manager, Foxhunter Pub
- Mr. Towey explained that Ms. Vanessa Smith is the Functions Manager for the Foxhunter. When a function is booked it is entered in the functions book, usually following a look at the room by the person making the booking, a deposit is payable and a room hire contract must be completed. The remainder of the monies for the use of the function room/D.J. Are then payable. The £200 deposit is a standard, refundable deposit and does not mean that the function room is booked. A room hire contract must be completed for this.
- The double booking of the function room in the Foxhunter came about as a result of an approach made to Declan Towey by a customer in another premises owned by therespondents. The customer requested the use of the room for 19 May and paid the deposit, in cash, to Declan Towey. Mr. Towey placed this money in the safe and forgot to enter the booking in the functions book and forgot to log the payment of the deposit.
- When Mr. Towey had tried to explain the situation to the complainant the latter had been completely inflexible and had insisted that any problem arising was Mr. Towey's to deal with. The complainant would not under any circumstances allow the function night to be altered in his case and he had stated that it would go ahead on the night in question.
- When Mr. Towey explained to the complainant that another function was on that night the complainant said that he was coming down to the premises on the night to see for himself if there was another function.
- The complainant became aggressive and had repeated that he did not want his deposit back, he wanted the use of the room. By "aggressive" Mr. Towey meant that the complainant would not meet him halfway in the matter.
- While Mr. Towey is used as General Manager to dealing with people who have become upset he finds that when the situation is explained to them they will normally reach an accommodation with him. The complainant was offered alternative nights but refused to accept them.
- The receipt which was forwarded to the Tribunal in respect of the deposit paid by the other party who had booked the function room, and which is dated 1 April, 2001, is written on a delivery docket in error. This docket is headed receipt from Ms. X, the other party, in error and is in fact for monies paid by that party to the Foxhunter, not monies paid to that party by the Foxhunter.
Ms. Vanessa Smith, Functions Manager, Foxhunter Pub.
Ms. Smith confirmed her written statement (above) and stated that:-
- When she was approached by the complainant on Sunday 22 April she was busy working in the pub restaurant, for which she also had responsibility. When the complainant made enquiries about the function room she left him and went to the main bar to get the General Manager. They looked up the functions book and returned to speak with Mr. Reilly but he had left the premises.
- Ms. Smith has been the functions manager in the Foxhunter for six years.
- When the person who rang her purporting to be the complainant's representative she declined to discuss the matter with him or give details over the phone as she did not know to whom she was speaking or his exact role in this matter as he refused to give her this information.
- Ms. Smith stated that a booking deposit secures the function room. However in the normal course of events a room hire contract is completed on payment of the deposit. This was not done in this instance.
- Ms. Smith became aware of the double booking after the discussion between the complainant and Mr. Slattery was related to her. She subsequently wrote up the entry for the second person after 22 April, 2001.
Mr Sean Slattery, Bar Manager, Foxhunter Pub
Mr. Slattery stated that :-
- He met Patrick Reilly on the evening of 24 April, 2001. Mr. Reilly informed him that he had spoken to Vanessa and that he wished to book the function room for 19 May.
- Mr. Slattery took Mr. Reilly's details and wrote them in the functions book. Mr. Slattery showed Mr. Reilly the function room. Mr. Reilly then stated that he required the room from 19 6p.m. Mr. Slattery told him that the room was only available from 8p.m. And that he would have to speak to Vanessa about earlier hours.
- Mr. Slattery offered a refund to Mr. Reilly because he insisted that he wanted the room from 6p.m.
- Mr. Slattery was not aware that there was a double booking and did not become aware of this until one week after 24 April.
- Mr. Slattery had been dealing with inquiries about function room bookings for 4-5 years at the time and it was common for him to take deposits. Following Mr. Reilly's visit, Mr. Slattery referred the matter to Mr. Declan Towey who stated that he would look after it from there on.
- Mr. Slattery had, in fact, shown Mr. Reilly the restaurant and not the actual function room. When Mr. Reilly became very insistent about the earlier time for the function Mr. Slattery "passed the buck" and referred the matter to Vanessa.
- Mr. Slattery did not see any other booking in the functions book at the time. He saw one entry which had "cancelled" entered beside it (not the function which ultimately went ahead).
Mr. Frank Towey, Director, The Foxhunter
Mr. Towey stated that:-
- The Foxhunter does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy of refusing or restricting service to Travellers or any other group of patrons. A member of the Traveller community is employed in another premises (named) owned by the company.
- One elderly member of the Traveller community had been a regular patron of the pub until he moved elsewhere. The gentleman in question had been to the premises at least every second day and had sometimes been accompanied by friends.
- The pub is adjacent to the Ballyowen Lane halting site and because of this has a regular Traveller clientele. Mr. Towey knows that this is the case because some of the Travellers who came to the pub told him their background. Mr. Towey would not otherwise know whether a customer was a Traveller or not.
- Mr. Towey has forty years experience in the licensed trade. Mr. Towey knows that the two specific, named functions which took place following Mr. Reilly's visit to the Foxhunter were Traveller functions because one of the parties identified themselves as such to him and in the other case he became aware of the party's Traveller status after the event. Mr. Towey specifically took note of the fact that the two functions were Traveller functions because he was aware of Mr. Reillys complaint and was anxious to demonstrate that the Foxhunter does not have a discriminatory policy in relation to Travellers. In other circumstances he would not have made any special note of the functions in question.
- The Foxhunter has one function room for bookings. When the function room is booked a room hire contract form is completed. If the book containing these is unavailable then another form of receipt, e.g. a complimentary slip, is given to the person booking the room.
4.3 Summary by Mr. Shane McSweeney, on behalf of respondent
- It is accepted that the complainant is a Traveller. However, it is not accepted that he was recognised by the staff of the Foxhunter or that he was refused the function room booking on that basis.
- There is a conflict of evidence on a number of important issues. In relation to the complainant's Traveller identity the evidence adduced does not establish that this was obvious to anyone concerned at the time of the booking. Also, the noticeable change in Mr. Slattery's demeanour coincides with his discussion/argument with the complainant about the start time for the function.
- The factors set out in relation to the identification of Travellers are not applicable or relevant on this occasion.
- The complainant was not, by his own admission, using his own accent initially, he was not therefore identifiable as a Traveller and cannot establish a prima facie case on that basis.
- The respondent did not maintain good records, therefore they are not clear but a genuine mistake was made due to the poor record keeping. The mistake was not discriminatory in nature.
- The meeting with Mr. Slattery is something of a red herring in that the heated discussion with the complainant led to the realisation that a double booking was in place.
- The entry in the functions book to the effect that the other function was "cancelled due to ill health" compounded the error. The staff of the Foxhunter had offered assistance to the complainant in securing a booking for alternative nights but these were rejected. This rejection is consistent with the fact that the complainant was insistent on his right to the night booked and perhaps if he had been more flexible the matter might have been resolved.
- The Foxhunter, untypical of public houses, has a regular Traveller clientele because of its proximity to the nearby halting site, and the licensees also have Traveller employees in a second premises.
- The respondent has established valid non-discriminatory reasons for refusing the function room booking and any minor inconsistencies are perhaps due to the time lapse since the alleged incident as those concerned are trying to interpret poor, dated, records which is now quite difficult.
- The respondent is glad that the complainant secured an alternative venue but feels that if the complainant had gone to the Foxhunter on the night sought he would have seen for himself that another function had proceeded on the night in question.
4.4 Summary by Ms. Mary Honan on behalf of the complainant
- The complainant had made a booking, paid a deposit which secures the room. The room was available on the preceding Sunday and on the Tuesday when the booking was made but a problem arose on the Thursday following the booking. No deposit had been paid for the booking which purportedly clashed with the complainants booking.
- Considerable confusion surrounds the other booking and only Mr. Declan Towey was aware of the booking in question.
- The complainant is a Traveller and was recognised as such in the course of conversation with Sean Slattery. The latter then attempted to return the deposit. The facts are consistent with less favourable treatment of the complainant because of his Traveller status which equates to discrimination. There is a prima facie inference of discrimination and the burden of proof shifts to the respondent.
- The respondent had not provided any kind of convincing or credible rebuttal to the inference of discrimination. For example the entries in the function room book in relation to the second booking were not made until after the incident involving the complainant.
5 Matters for consideration
5.1 The matter referred for investigation turns upon whether or not the complainant was directly discriminated against contrary to Section 3 (1)(a) and 3 (2)(i) of the Equal Status Act 2000 in terms of Section 5 (1) of that Act.
5.2 Section 3 (1)(a) provides that discrimination shall be taken to occur where: "On any of the grounds specified.......a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated".
5.3 Section 3 (2) provides that: "As between any two persons, the discriminatory grounds ... are ... (i) that one is a member of the Traveller community and the other is not."
5.4 Section 5 (1) states that "a person shall not discriminate in disposing of goods to the public generally or a section of the public or in providing a service, whether the disposal or provision is for consideration or otherwise and whether the service provided can be availed of only by a section of the public ".
5.5 I must first consider whether the existence of a prima facie case has been established by the complainant. There are three key elements which need to be established to show that a prima facie case exists. These are:
(a) Membership of a discriminatory ground (e.g. the Traveller community ground)
(b) Evidence of specific treatment of the complainant by the respondent
(c) Evidence that the treatment received by the complainant was less favourable than the treatment someone, not covered by that ground, would have received in similar circumstances.
If and when those elements are established, the burden of proof shifts, meaning that the difference in treatment is assumed to be discriminatory on the relevant ground. In such cases the claimant does not need to prove that there is a link between the difference and the membership of the ground, instead the respondent has to prove that there is not. If they succeed in establishing prima facie evidence, the burden of proof then shifts to the respondent to rebut the inference of discrimination.
5.6 In considering what constitutes a prima facie case, I have examined definitions from other sources. In Dublin Corporation v Gibney (EE5/1986) prima facie evidence is defined as: "evidence which in the absence of any credible contradictory evidence by the employer would lead any reasonable person to conclude that discrimination had occurred."
In article 4 of the EC Burden of Proof Directive (Council Directive 97/80/EC) the following definition appears: "when persons who consider themselves wronged..... establish, before a court or other competent authority, facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination". In Teresa Mitchell v Southern Health Board, (DEE011, 15.02.01), the Labour Court interpreted article 4 of the EC Burden of Proof Directive as follows: " This indicates that a claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, the primary facts on which they rely in seeking to raise a presumption of unlawful discrimination. It is only if those primary facts are established to the satisfaction of the Court , and they are regarded by the Court as being of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of discrimination, that the onus shifts to the respondent to prove that there was no infringement of the principle of equal treatment. Applied to the present case, this approach means that the appellant must first prove as fact one or more of the assertions on which her complaint of discrimination is based. "
6. Conclusions of the Equality Officer
6.1 In this particular case the complainant claims that he was discriminated against on the basis of his membership of the Traveller community. He booked a function room and the booking was subsequently cancelled by the respondent. The respondent denies discrimination.
6.2 I am satisfied that the complainant is a member of the Traveller community in accordance with (a) at 5.5 above and this is not disputed by the respondent. The complainant has provided written and oral evidence of refusal of service, in relation to the booking of a function room, to him by the respondent's staff, which has been confirmed by the respondent, and this fulfills (b) at 5.5 above.
6.3 In relation to key element (c) at 5.5 above the refusal of service must be shown to be such that a non-Traveller in the same circumstances would be treated more favourably. In the instant case it has been stated that an individual, who is not a Traveller, who had not paid a deposit for the function room and who had not had their details entered into the function room book, had been given the use of the function room for the night on which it 24 was required by the complainant. This other person serves as an appropriate comparator in this matter. On the basis that this person was prima facie treated more favourably than the complainant I am satisfied that the complainant has established a prima facie case of discrimination on the Traveller community ground.
6.4 The respondent has indicated that a second booking was already in place for the room required by the complainant. The entry for such a booking was not made in the function book until a week after the booking which the complainant made and Mr. Slattery, the bar manager who took the booking from the complainant, had no knowledge at the time of any such second booking. This could not therefore have been the reason for the initial attempts by Mr. Slattery to return the complainant's deposit and cancel the booking.
6.5 Mr. Slattery confirmed to the complainant that the room was available, took the deposit money from the complainant and entered the complainant's details in the function book. He then offered to show the complainant the room. In the course of his doing so they conversed. Mr. Slattery states that the complainant became insistent about requiring the room for an earlier time than was normal. Mr. Slattery also states that he did not show the function room to the complainant but, rather, showed him the restaurant, at which point he decided that he should refund the deposit to the complainant and cancel the booking. The complainant confirmed that he did ask for use of the function room for an earlier time but was told that that was not possible. He was not referred to anybody in authority before the refund was placed in front of him and Mr. Slattery requested the receipt back.
6.6 It is clear that something happened between the time Mr. Slattery offered to show the function room to the complainant and the time the two of them reached the room/restaurant, such that Mr. Slattery decided not to accept the booking. It is also clear that Mr. Slattery was unaware of any double booking at this time. He had been conversing with the complainant. Mr. Slattery states that his decision to offer the refund of the deposit was based solely on the insistence of the complainant in the course of their conversation on having the room earlier than was normal. Yet Mr. Declan Towey was clear in giving evidence that he was the only person who had the authority to make a decision in relation to the early opening of the bar in the function room. Mr. Slattery, according to his own evidence, did not refer the complainant to Mr. Towey at any time in the course of their conversation. It was only when the complainant refused to accept the refund or to hand back the receipt that Mr. Slattery referred him, not to Mr. Towey, but to Ms. Vanessa Smith, who did not have the authority to deal with the issue of the early bar opening.
6.7 Mr. Slattery has failed to establish that it was the complainant's attitude about the early opening that was a decisive factor in his trying to cancel the booking. Given that he is a manager, is listed as a person with the authority and responsibility for dealing with function bookings and has done so for some time, I do not accept that he was unable to deal with what I regard as an entirely standard, reasonable request by the complainant to start a function early. Even if it were the case that the complainant was unduly insistent in this regard Mr. Slattery, in my view, has sufficient experience and seniority of position to be able to deal with such insistence on the part of customers. He should be able to do what he holds himself out as being qualified to do, that is manage such situations. Mr. Slattery is listed in the respondent's own literature as one of the two individuals who have the responsibility for dealing with bookings for functions, the other being Ms. Smith. I do not accept the respondent's claim, therefore, that Mr. Slattery is limited to dealing with initial inquiries and that he should not have taken the booking. Nor do I accept that the basis for attempting to cancel the booking was a heated debate between the complainant and Mr. Slattery about the time at which the room should be made available to the complainant. If that were the case it did not form any part of the respondent's initial replies to the complainant inquiries in the matter. The only reason put forward initially by the respondent was that a double booking was in place. Mr. Slattery was unaware of any such double booking when attempting to cancel the complainant's booking. The complainant states that he had deliberately not spoken in his normal accent until such time as he had the receipt safely in his possession at which time he reverted to his normal speech pattern. He had done this because of past experiences as a Traveller whereby he was refused access to services etc. I am satisfied that this was the case and that there was no other sinister or cynical reason for this, as was implied by the respondent. I am satisfied that when the complainant reverted to his normal accent that Mr. Slattery, in the course of conversing with the complainant recognised him as a Traveller and attempted to cancel the complainant's booking for that reason.
6.8 Following the attempts by Mr. Slattery to cancel the complainant's booking, the matter was referred to Ms. Smith, the functions manager, and ultimately to Mr. Towey, the general manager. It transpired that Mr. Towey had informally taken a booking at the beginning of April, in another premises, for the Foxhunter's function room. He had taken in a cash deposit but had placed it in the safe marked incorrectly, therefore the cash did not get logged correctly in the receipts book or function book for the Foxhunter. Mr. Towey also omitted to enter the details of the booking in the function room book for the Foxhunter.
Ms. Smith had told the complainant in the course of conversation with him that the second booking related to a football team travelling from England for the occasion. Mr. Towey states that it was for an individual known to him. Ms. Smith told the complainant that no deposit had been paid by the second party seeking the room but that their booking was valid.
The entry in the function room book also shows that, up to the Friday before 19 May, the second party had not been in touch to provide details for the upcoming function. This implies that the staff of the Foxhunter had not been in touch with the second party to determine these details, or confirmation of the booking. The entry for the second party also shows that seating was to be reserved in the carvery for lunch for a number of people (9 adults, 2 children) for 1.00 p.m. on the day in question. The respondent stated that the carvery reservation was unconnected with the second party and was unrelated to the function room booking. The carvery reservation, however, is carried onto a separate sheet of paper dealing with the booking for the second party, making it entirely unclear precisely what room the second party was booking, and for what time or purpose.
In summary there was;-
An unlogged booking for a second party
An unlogged deposit from a second party
Information written on a "delivery note" dated 1 April, 2001 headed "receipt from Ms. X" (second party) which states that the second party received £200 from the Foxhunter, which the respondent states is actually the receipt for the deposit paid by that person to the Foxhunter
No proper receipt for the deposit paid by the second party
No room hire contract made out to or signed by the second party
Details of the second booking entered in the functions book one week after the complainant has made a booking which is then unilaterally cancelled by the respondent
An ambiguous entry for the second booking in the functions book
The respondent's representative submitted that the records kept by the respondent were poor but that that did not mean that discrimination had occurred. This might be more persuasive an argument were it not for the fact that the respondent's records were actually quite meticulously kept in relation to functions in the Foxhunter. An examination of the functions book showed that each booking in the book was carefully logged and followed up in relation to details required, confirmation of booking etc. It seems that in no other case where a booking was made has such a catalogue of errors occurred in relation to the recording the required information, and/or issuing the correct documentation. Certainly no evidence was provided of any such other similar occurrence.
I am satisfied that, on balance, the second booking has not been shown to have been validly made in advance of the complainant's booking and that the latter should have had priority on the basis that a full deposit had been paid and accepted. This deposit, in accordance with the respondent's own terms for the hiring out of the function room secured the room for the complainant's use. The fact that he was less favourably treated than the other party compounds the discriminatory action of Mr. Slattery in cancelling the complainant's booking before he was even aware that there was any question of a second booking.
In relation to the examples of specific functions booked for Travellers in the Foxhunter, both refer to dates afer the incident at hand. The references by the respondent to the one Traveller gentleman who regularly attended at the premises until he moved from the area do little other than show that there are few examples of serving Travellers for the respondent to draw on, particularly given the stated proximity of the premises to a nearby halting site from which the respondent stated that there was regular patronage. In any event, it is a requirement of the Equal Status Act that Travellers are treated equally in the same circumstances as non-Travellers. Even if I accept that the respondent sometimes serves Travellers, the respondent must show that he does not make it more difficult for Travellers vis a vis non-Travellers to get service. In the case at hand I am satisfied that the respondent has not shown that that was the case.
7 Decision
7.1 I find that the complainant was discriminated against on the Traveller community ground contrary to Section 3(1) and 3(2)(i) of the Equal Status Act and in terms of Section 5(1) of that Act.
8. Liability
Section 20 of the Equal Status Act states that
"respondent" means a person who is alleged by a complainant in a case under section 21(1) to have engaged in prohibited conduct." The representative for the respondent insisted that each person in attendance with his party was a respondent in their own right. This was contested by the representative for the complainant. However, the respondent's representative was adamant that this was the case. On this basis each of the "respondents" was admitted to the Hearing while the complainant was putting his case.
9. Vicarious Liability
Section 42(1) of the Equal Status Act, 2000 provides that:
"Anything done by a person in the course of his or her employment shall, in any proceedings brought under this Act, be treated for the purposes of this Act as done also by that person's employer, whether or not it was done with the employer's knowledge or approval" Section 42(3) provides that:
"In proceedings brought under this Act against an employer in respect of an act alleged to have been done by an employee of the employer, it shall be e defence for the employer to prove that the employer took such steps as were reasonably practicable to prevent the employee-
(a) from doing that act, or
(b) from doing in the course of his or her employment acts of that description"
In the course of the Hearing it was quite clear that the witnesses in question were not respondents in their own right but were acting entirely in the course of their appointed duties, in accordance with standard practice, in their place of employment. In this context section 42 of the Equal Status Act is applicable and I am entirely satisfied that none of the witnesses concerned acted outside the scope of their employment in this matter. Nor did the representative for the respondent attempt to submit any evidence which constituted a defence in accordance with section 42(3).
The action which constituted the initial discrimination is directly attributable to the bar manager, Mr. Slattery. The subsequent discrimination is attributable to a number of employees, including the general manager and the functions manager. However, as they were clearly acting within the scope of their employment I find that their employer, the licensee of the Foxhunter Public House, is vicariously liable for their actions in accordance with section 42(1) of the Equal Status Act.
8 Redress
8.1 Under section 25(4) of the Equal Status Act, 2000 redress shall be ordered where a finding is in favour of the complainant in accordance with section 27. Section 27(1) provides that:
"the types of redress for which a decision of the Director under section 25 may provide are either or both of the following as may be appropriate in the circumstances:
(a) an order for compensation for the effects of the discrimination;
or
(b) an order that a person or persons specified in the order take a course of action which is so specified."
8.2 Under Section 27 (1)(a) I hereby order that €1000 be paid to the complainant by the respondent for the effects of the discrimination.
8.3 Under section 27 (1)(b) of the Equal Status Act 2000 I order that the respondent immediately review all customer service practices and ensure that they are fully compliant with the Equal Status Act 2000.
In making this award and this order I have taken into consideration the loss of amenity to the complainant on the evening of the 19 May 2001, which was mitigated to an extent by the fact that he received service elsewhere and his evening was not, therefore, entirely ruined by this incident. I would stress that the mitigation refers exclusively to the practical impact which the discrimination had on the complainant and should not be interpreted as in any way mitigating the social and personal effects of the discrimination experienced in this case.
I have also taken into account the cost, in terms of time and effort expended, to the complainant in pursuing his complaint in this matter.
__________________________
Dolores Kavanagh
Equality Officer
17 April, 2003