ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00002395
Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00003245-001 | 18/03/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/08/2016
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Niamh O'Carroll Kelly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complain and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:
On the 11th of February 2016, the complainant and two friends entered a fast food restaurant in a Dublin city centre shopping centre. They intended to wait there for the complainant’s brother. They did not intend on buying any food or beverages whilst waiting. They were sitting quietly, playing on their phones when they were approached by a restaurant staff member. That person advised them to order our food in a very abrupt manner. The complainant advised him that they were waiting for someone. The staff member then left the area. After another 5 minutes the same staff member approached the table again and advised that they either order food or he would call security. Security were called. Three members of security approached the complainant and his friends whilst they were still in the fast food restaurant. They tried very hard to communicate with the security men that there was no issue and that they were just awaiting the arrival of a friend but the security personnel would not listen to anything they said and ignored their pleases entirely. They instructed them to leave the restaurant, which they did. They stood outside chatting for a while. Two members of security remained beside them as if we were guilty of a crime. The third member of security left. The third member of security returned then and advised them to leave the Shopping Centre. They would not give any reason as to why. Whilst they were been escorted from the Shopping Centre the complainant’s brother, who was the person they were waiting for, arrived. The complainant felt he was being treated like a criminal and was extremely embarrassed and upset by the situation. He works in a retail outlet across from the centre and many of his work colleagues were outside smoking when he was ejected from the centre. They still talk about it today and he feels they have adopted a ‘no smoke without fire’ opinion on the matter. He feels he was discriminated because of his race and for no other reason as he did not commit any crime or behave inappropriately whilst waiting for his brother. |
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:
On the 11th February, 2016 at approximately 15.00 the complainant and two other males entered the fast food restaurant in a City Centre Shopping Centre. They sat down occupying two tables. They did not purchase any food or beverages. They were seated for two minutes, playing on their phones, when they were approached by the Manager. He asked the group if the were “ ok for food and drinks”. One of the party replied that they were ‘ just waiting for a friend’. The manager went about his business. He returned five minutes later and invited the group to purchase something. One of the group replied that they would not be purchasing anything as he did not like the way he was being asked to purchase something. The Manager advised the group that it was the restaurants policy that seating and WiFi were for customers use only and he pointed out the policy that is displayed on the wall beside where the group were sitting. One of the group then asked the Manager “ are you afraid of me”. They were then advised that if they were not going to purchase food they would have to leave the restaurant. They refused to make a purchase and made no effort to leave. They were then advised that if they did not leave security would have to be called. Security was called. When security arrived the group were blocking the entrance to the restaurant. They did move out onto the mall. A respondent security officer spoke to the complainant. He repeated the restaurants policy to him. They were advised that they could go up to the food court and wait there and use the Wifi whilst waiting. This interaction took just over one minute. Security then left. About two minutes later one of the group re-entered the restaurant and whilst there made no attempt to purchase anything. It was at that stage that the decision was made to defuse the escalating situation and have the group removed from the centre. They were asked to leave the centre. They did so and security walked some short distance behind them until they were out on the street. At no stage during the entire event did anyone on either side of the dispute get annoyed, raise their voice or get physical with anyone else. The entire altercation was calm and respectful. |
Decision:
Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act. Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 200 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act.
The complainant seeks redress in relation to the alleged prohibited conduct pursuant to Section 21 of the Equal Status act 2000.
“prohibited conduct” means discrimination against, or sexual harassment or harassment of, or permitting the sexual harassment or harassment of, a person in contravention of this Act;
The complainant alleges that he was discriminated against by the respondent purely on the grounds of his race. He is from Pakistan. The complainant admits that he had no intention of purchasing food whilst in the restaurant. He concedes that they were asked to leave the restaurant if they were not going to purchase anything. The restaurants policy was very clearly displayed on the wall behind where the group were seated. I am satisfied that the restaurant manager pointed out the policy to the group. I am also satisfied that the manager gave the group ample time to either purchase something or to leave the restaurant. The complainant took umbrage with the tone of the manager’s instructions and felt that he was rude and disrespectful. Even if that is the case, the group, with full knowledge of the restaurants policy made a decision to ignore the instructions they were given. They had the opportunity to defuse the situation when they were informed that security were being called but opted not to do so. One of the group sought to aggravate the situation why returning to the restaurant after being instructed to leave. The complainant’s statement that his friend went back in to buy something is not a credible one. When found in the restaurant he was not in the queue. He was standing in the middle of the restaurant as if waiting for someone. I find that the respondents decision to request that they leave the shopping centre was made solely to defuse an escalating situation and not due to the race of the complainant or his friend. Furthermore I find that it was within the complainant’s power to avoid the incident happening at all and that he ( and his friends) made the decision for their own personal reasons to escalate the matter leading to them being ejected from the centre. I find that the respondent, its servants or agents acted responsibly, professionally and executed their duty in a respectful way.
In all of the circumstances I find that the complainant’s claim fails.
Dated: 17 August 2016