Dr. Tharappel C. James V Bus Átha Cliath Dublin Bus (Represented by CIE Group of Companies Solicitor)
Keywords
Equal Status Act, 2000 - Race Ground Section 3 (2) (h) - Establishment of a Prima Facie case - Action by bus driver regarding defaced bus/rail pass - Byelaws applying to the company
Delegation under the Equal Status Act, 2000
The complainant Dr. Tharappel C. James referred a complaint of discrimination on the Race ground to the Director of Equality Investigations. In accordance with her powers under Section 75 of the Employment Equality Act,1998 the Director has delegated the investigation, hearing and decision in this case and the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under part III of the Equal Status Act, 2000 to me Mary O'Callaghan an Equality Officer. The hearing of the complaint was held on Thursday 16th October 2003.
1. Dispute
This dispute concerns a complaint made by Dr. Tharappel C. James that he was discriminated against by Dublin Bus when the Driver of a bus he was travelling on allegedly harassed him and confiscated his pre-paid annual bus and rail pass because of his race.
Dublin Bus, the Respondent maintains that the driver acted appropriately in seizing the ticket as the use of a defaced bus ticket is in breach of bye-law 21 contained in Statutory Instrument No. 394 of 1996 - CÓRAS IOMPAIR ÉIREANN BYE-LAWS CONFIRMATION ORDER, 1996 which states that: No passenger shall use or attempt to use, any ticket which has been forged, altered defaced or mutilated. A bus driver is fully authorised to seize a ticket that is defaced. Evidence was provided at the hearing by the complainant and by Dublin Bus staff comprising the bus driver involved in the incident, the inspector who met the complainant at Dublin Bus headquarters on the day of the incident and was in possession of the bus/rail pass, the Operations Manager for the bus garage from where the bus originated and the Equality Officer for Dublin Bus.
2. Summary of the Complainant's Case
The complainant alleges that on boarding a bus operated by the respondent on the 9th of January 2003, the bus driver upon inspecting his ticket (which he agrees was damaged) queried him as to why he had cut the ticket, confiscated it and behaved in a manner which was hostile. He contends that he was directed to a Garda station repeatedly by the driver, if he was to recover his ticket. This action led him to the belief that he was being accused of fraudulent activity in relation to the use of the ticket.
The complainant alleges that the behaviour of the driver occurred because of his (the complainant's) racial origin. Other passengers boarding the bus were not subjected to the same treatment. Such an allegation, if proved, is contrary to Section 3 (2) (h) of the Equal Status Act, 2000. Upon reaching the O'Connell Street headquarters of Dublin Bus he alighted from the vehicle and went to the Customer services area to report what occurred on the bus. On being directed to the relevant service area he found a bus inspector checking a bus and rail ticket which, it emerged, was the same ticket seized from him earlier in the day. The ticket, which was damaged due to getting trapped in a validation machine in a rail station some weeks previously, was immediately replaced at no charge and given to the complainant. The complainant says he received an apology at the time from members of staff in the O'Connell Street Office and he made a written complaint about the incident. His complaint was dealt with by way of a follow-up telephone interview from Dublin Bus.
3. Summary of the Respondent's Case
The respondent states that the complainant boarded the bus with a ticket that was defaced and that the driver in such circumstances is entitled to confiscate or seize such a ticket. This is governed by the bye laws for Dublin Bus. Under normal circumstances the ticket would then be submitted to the operations manager at the bus garage where the bus originated, for verification of its status by Dublin Bus Headquarters in O'Connell Street. The complainant was directed by the driver to the relevant Bus Garage for the recovery of his ticket. In the instance under investigation, however, the bus driver provided the ticket to an inspector in O'Connell Street as he met him while passing through O'Connell Street. This action coincidentally facilitated the rapid issuing of a replacement ticket to the complainant as he was on the premises when the inspector came to Dublin Bus Headquarters to check the ticket.
The respondent denies that any of the actions taken were because of the racial origins of the complainant but that they resulted purely from the presentation of a ticket that was visibly defaced. The respondent states that they do not operate in a discriminatory manner and that as part of their customer service training for employees, a module on equality and the nine grounds covered by the equality legislation is included. By the date of the hearing of this matter 2,653 of the 3,400 staff employed by Dublin bus had undertaken this training course (78%). Eighty per cent of Dublin Bus employees are bus drivers. Any apology that was proffered to the complainant was merely for the inconvenience arising from the incident.
4. Conclusions of the Equality Officer
I find that the complainant has not succeeded in establishing a prima-facie case of discrimination on the race ground. While he has established that that he is covered by the race ground and that there was an incident involving the seizure of his ticket, which at the very least led to a considerable misunderstanding between the parties, he has not provided the Tribunal with evidence that this occurred due to his race, colour nationality and ethnic origins or that the respondent treated the complainant less favourably than any other person might have been treated in similar circumstances. In reaching this decision I have taken account of the following.
- The acceptance by both parties to the complaint that the ticket that was used by the complainant was visibly damaged and could have been understood to be defaced.
- That the bus driver's actions were in compliance with the bye-laws applying to the company.
- The fact that at no time during the incident was reference made to the complainant's race by the bus driver or other Dublin Bus Staff.
- That there was no evidence that any of the other passengers on the bus were carrying defaced tickets.
- That the staff encountered in Dublin Bus Head Office in O'Connell Street including the inspector and customer service staff worked courteously and efficiently to remedy the difficulties with the complainants bus/rail pass and apologised for the inconvenience caused.
- That there was no allegation of dishonesty by the complainant in relation to the use of the damaged ticket.
In a case such as this, where the complaint of discrimination has not been upheld, I am not empowered to make an order for any specific action to be taken by the respondent. However, I am struck by the fact that while the action to be taken in relation to a damaged or defaced ticket seems to have been well communicated within the company to staff, there has not been a similar communication of what a customer/passenger using the services of the company should do when a ticket is damaged. I am taking this opportunity to suggest that in the furtherance of good customer service, Dublin Bus might review this situation with the aim of making available the relevant information as widely as possible to customers. For example, the display of a poster or notice on buses, providing a contact phone number or address of venue to be contacted in such circumstances could be provided. I believe that such an action would go a long way towards preventing an incident, such as that dealt with herein, from recurring.
5. Decision
I find for the respondent in this case
Mary O'Callaghan
Equality Officer
23rd October 2003