EQUAL STATUS ACTS
DECISION NO. DEC-S2016-004
PARTIES
Miceal O’Hurley-Pitts
(Represented by Ian Fitzharris B.L instructed by Aonghus McCarthy, Solicitors)
AND
Anita Nic Amhlaoimh and Gaelscoil Nas na Riogh
(Represented by Mason Hayes Curran, Solicitors)
File reference: ES/2013/0005
Date of issue: February 2016
HEADNOTES: Equal Status Acts 2000-2015-Gender-Marital status-Family Status- Victimisation.
1 DISPUTE
1.1 This dispute concerns a claim by Mr O’Hurley-Pitts that he was discriminated against by the respondent on the grounds of Gender, Marital status, Family Status-Victimisation contrary to section 3 of the Equal Status Acts. The complainant referred his claim to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on January 24th 2013 under the Equal Status Acts 2000-2012.
1.2 On October 22nd, 2015, in accordance with his powers under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Commission Act 2015 Acts, the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission delegated the case to me, Pat Brady, an Adjudication Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director General under Part VII of the Acts, on which date my investigation commenced. Submissions were received from both sides and in accordance with Section 79(1) of the Acts and as part of my investigation I proceeded to a hearing on October 29th 2015 at which an adjournment was granted due to the non-availability of one of the respondents and the hearing resumed on November 16th 2015.
1.3 This decision is issued by me following the establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission, as an Adjudication Officer who was an Equality Officer prior to the 1st October 2015, in accordance with section 84 (3) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015.
1.4 At the hearing the claims under the headings of victimisation and under the Family status grounds were withdrawn.
2 COMPLAINANTS' SUBMISSION
2.1 The complainant is a separated parent and his child attended Gaelscoil Nas na Riogh where she had been enrolled by their mother without his consent and despite his opposition and where she attended between 2012 and September 2015. Issues arising from the enrolment of a second child also form part of the complaint.
2.2 His complaint is based on the fact of the school’s enrolment of the child and secondly its alleged continuing unfavourable treatment of him as a parent. He communicated this opposition to the enrolment by email on October 3rd 2012 and in the course of a telephone conversation with the Principal on the same day. He also brought the attention of the school to a court order in relation to the matter; a Decree of Judicial Separation, on October 18th 2012.
2.3 While the school responded on October 25th 2012 saying that it was not its policy to become involved in ‘disputes involving parents, family law or the courts’ and advising that he should raise any difficulties he had over the enrolment with the children’s mother he again communicated his objections on November 23rd and included a reference to a child protection issue about which he was concerned.
2.4 There were further exchanges about whether the second child had been enrolled in the school in January and February 2013.
2.5 The complainant says that he did not receive any information from the school between June 2013 and September 2015 but did receive material on June 13th 2013.
3 RESPONDENT'S SUBMISSION
3.1 The first respondent is the school Principal who outlined the policy on enrolment. She stated in evidence that the school is required to accept any child who presents for enrolment subject only to there being a place in the school and the child having attained the required age. In her direct evidence to the Tribunal she stated that there is no requirement to seek parental approval in the case of separated parents, for example, and indeed to do so might have negative implications. Enrolment also requires the filling out of an enrolment form. There was some delay in the completion of this form and the space for including the contact details for the father was left blank.
3.2 The complainant contacted the school on September 27th 2013 and advised the Principal of the existence of a court order restricting the enrolment of the children to a school in Cork and that they were under the supervision of the HSE of which she had not been aware. The complainant subsequently emailed the supporting information and she told the Complainant she would raise the matter with the Board of Management.
3.3 The Principal took advice from the HSE on the child protection issue, from the Patron and from the Primary Principal’s network, a representative body; all of whom advised that the child should be retained in the school. This was communicated to the Complainant on October 25th 2012 by the Chairperson of the Board and it is accepted that there was a three week delay in doing so but this is attributed to the need to take various advices on the matter.
3.4 The Principal also gave evidence that the Complainant was on the same mailing list as very other parent for whom an address had been supplied.
3.5 The Class teacher MNC gave evidence that she regularly spoke to the complainant about the child’s progress when he collected her which was most Fridays. (The complainant disputed this).
4 FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS OF THE EQUALITY OFFICER
4.1 I have to decide if the treatment of the complainant was discriminatory on the grounds of his gender or marital status by the principal or the School. In reaching my decision I have taken into account all of the submissions, oral and written, made to me in the course of my investigation as well as the evidence presented at the hearing.
4.2 I can find no merit in, or basis for the complaint. In particular the complainant made out no case that the respondent treated him any differently, to say nothing of less favourably which is the requirement under the Acts.
4.3 In relation to the enrolment it operated its standard procedures and the complainant made no case that he was treated less favourably on the grounds of his gender or family status.
4.4 In respect of his ongoing relationship with the school I see no reason not to accept the evidence of the class teacher that she communicated with the complainant as she did with any other parent. There was a conflict in the evidence about whether material was being posted to the complainant; the school said it was, he denied receiving it, in the overall context of the respondent’s case nothing turns on this in the absence of evidence that he was excluded from such mailings, which was directly contradicted by the Principal, whose evidence I accept.
5. DECISION
5.1 I have investigated the above complaints and make the following decisions in accordance with section 25 of the Acts that:
· The complainant has not established a prima facie case of discrimination on any of the claimed grounds. The respondent has conclusively justified its practises in relation to the enrolment and ongoing relationship with the complainant.
5.2 Accordingly I dismiss the complaint.
______________________
Pat Brady
Adjudication Officer/Equality Officer
1st February 2016