ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00000546

Complaints for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 10th March 2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Sean Reilly

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 complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

On the date of the Hearing following the opening of the Hearing, the attendance sheet was signed by all present, followed by the introduction of all present including myself, and my briefly explaining how I would be conducting the Hearing, stating, as always, that I would be asking questions of both parties as part of my investigation at the Hearing.   I then confirmed what I understood the Complaint under the Equal Status Act 2000 to be and there was no issue in that respect as all present understood and agreed what the Complaint was.   The Respondent handed in copies of their submissions, which they confirmed they had electronically submitted to the WRC in the previous days.    All of this took approximately 10 minutes.

The Complainant had earlier stated he wished to raise a preliminary issue and I asked him to raise it at this stage.   The Complainant said he was seeking an adjournment of the Hearing: he said he was told by the Legal Aid Board to seek an adjournment as there was a waiting list of a few months for their services and that this fact would likely be known to the Adjudicator.   I told the Complainant it was very late to be applying for an adjournment and I asked him when he consulted with the Legal Aid Board; he replied “a few months ago”.

I then asked him why he waited so long to apply for the adjournment and he responded that he had got a letter from us (the WRC) telling him the matter would be dealt with/decided by way of written submissions.   I expressed surprise at this and I said that in my experience there was always a hearing of a Complaint, the Complainant agreed with me, saying that he too was surprised as he would have expected a hearing to have his case and his views heard.   I asked the Complainant if I could see the letter in question.   He said that he no longer had it, as his home had very recently been broken into, his file on these matters had been stolen along with a computer provided to him by the Respondent for research work and he suggested that the theft was related to the hearing of his complaint.

I had printed all the documents in the electronic file and had them with me at the Hearing; I produced a file copy of the document referred to.   It was a letter dated 30 November 2015 to the Complainant from the WRC and the Complainant agreed this was the letter in question.   It was the standard letter written to all complainants and respondents.   I read out the final paragraph of the first page of the letter which states:

“An Adjudication Officer will in due course be assigned to this case.   The Adjudication Officer will inquire into the complaint(s)/dispute(s), give both parties an opportunity to be heard and to present any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s), make a decision in relation to the complaint(s) /dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions and give the parties a copy of that decision.   It should be noted, however, that an Adjudication Officer may, at any time, dismiss a complaint if she/he is of the opinion that it is without substance or foundation.   The Director General of the Commission may also decide that a complaint or dispute may be dealt with by written submissions only.”

I handed this letter to the Complainant for him to read and he again agreed it was the one he was referring to.   I pointed out to him that the letter did not in fact as stated by him, tell him that his complaint would be dealt with by way of written submissions and that he was wrong in that respect.

To my extreme surprise, the Complainant then said he did not like my tone or attitude, I replied that I was entitled to ask him questions.   The Complainant then said I was biased against him.   I was astonished by this and I asked him was he seriously accusing me of being biased against him.   I was even more surprised when he then said that he was withdrawing from the Hearing and accused me of bullying him.   I immediately told him that the hearing of the case would continue in his absence if he withdrew from the Hearing and advised him to think about it.   He repeated that I was biased against him and was bullying him and he said that he had enough of bullying from the Respondent and he again said he was withdrawing from the Hearing.   I again told him the Hearing would continue in his absence and again advised him to think out this before withdrawing.   At this stage the Complainant had gathered together his belongings that he had brought with him to the Hearing and he left the Hearing. This exchange lasted less than 10 minutes.

The Complainant had sent a copious amount of documentation along with the Complaint Form quoted above, this included a copy of an Affidavit from the Complainant referred to there.   It should be noted that I have removed the names of all parties referred to and replaced them with titles or descriptions of the parties referred, e.g. Complainant, the University, Head of Discipline, Programme Director, VP, etc., as required by the Workplace Relations Act 2015.

It should be noted that this document refers, in his heading and in the body of the document to an entity that is not a party to this case and all references to that body have been removed from the following quotation of that document

AFFIDAVIIT OF (COMPLAINANT)

1. I, the Complainant of (address) aged 18 years and upwards do make OATH, and state as follows.
2. I make this affidavit from facts within my own knowledge save where otherwise appears, and where so appears I believe the same to be true
3. I make the affidavit in support of my application to the Equality Tribunal and to request that the University be joined to the proceedings as a second respondent.

4. On Thursday 30^th April 2015, I was called to a meeting at the University by the Head of Discipline and the Programme Director.   This came without warning and without notice, and was a breach of the University Procedures.   Several unfounded allegations were made against me, including, inter alia, incompetence, plagiarism and a breach of the code of conduct.   I objected to the Meeting as I was meant to be on Work Placement as a research assistant as part of my MA Course.   The Head of Discipline allowed a short adjournment until the next day 01 May 2015, at 3pm in the afternoon to allow me to have a friend and/or a representative from the Union present.
5. On Friday 01 May 2015, I attended the Meeting with my (named) friend and the Welfare Officer from the Students Union at the University.
6. The Head of Discipline asked all present to consent to a recording of the Meeting.   All present gave their consent and the Meeting was recorded.
7. The first allegation made against me was that I was performing below par and that I had received 40% for most assignments and course work.   This is untrue, as apart from the Programme Director and another named Lecturer – most lecturers had given me grades ranging from 50% to 85%.   This is another example of the ongoing course of conduct I have been subjected to since the University shut down my Legion of Mary Society.   Further, it is direct and indirect discrimination on the grounds of religion.
8. It was explained to the Head of Discipline that the Programme Director has been making highly offensive comments to me including language such as “Fuck the Prophet…..Fuck the Bible.”   The Programme Director also tells me on a regular basis that she “hates all religions.”   This is unprofessional conduct and we are meant to be discussing my work and not religion.   The Programme Director has made references to “Irish Catholics” in a derogatory way.
9. During the Meeting the Head of Discipline accused me of plagiarism, but this was not substantiated in the light of the definition of plagiarism, which is that of using the work or ideas of another person.   The work was my own and any other work was appropriately referenced.
10. The Head of Discipline stated that she had intentionally and recklessly (without my consent) written to a (named) Trust Fund that I had made application to jeopardise my application.   This was unethical and illegal, and in breach of my contract with the University.   Further, she implied that my application was made as a member of staff at the University.   I applied to the Trust as a postgraduate Student by email using my student account and signed the letter as under my appropriate title.   I seek appropriate compensation and an apology for same.   It was a further breach of my European and Constitutional rights.   It demonstrates an ongoing course of conduct that is offensive.   The correct procedure would have been to discuss the matter with me before she decided to write to the Trust for clarification.   The Head of Discipline has also used my intellectual property and defamed me in writing and slander to the Trust Fund.   As an Irish Citizen I am free to converse with whom I like, and the fact that the Head of Discipline intercepted my communication is a breach of Article 8.1 of the ECHR (right to private communication).   There is no law against entering my work in a competition.   Further, there is no law against me making an application to a Trust Fund that receives applications from the public and world at large.   This demonstrates ongoing bullying and discrimination.   Unless the Head of Discipline is suffering from confusion or some other mental incapacity she should not have breached my human rights.
11. The Head of Discipline accused me of being “confused” and not able to write an essay.   This is shocking and astounding as she receives funding to promote “mental health and well-being”.   The Programme Director has constantly tried to break me and undermine my confidence by stating that I cannot use a computer or write a document.   I am being bullied on a continuous basis by a named Lecturer and the Programme Director and now the Head of Discipline is taking part in the bullying and harassment and is not using the correct procedures.   The University is a public body and must ensure that all their staff refers to the correct and fair procedures.   This allegation of being confused was also made by a named Lecturer in writing, which implied that I was not of sound mind and was made in retaliation for raising a concern and lodging papers with the Equality Tribunal.   This named Lecturer stated in writing that I did not include any references in my essays.   This is untrue.   I included two pages of references.   There was no feedback from the second marker as I had requested same and also from the external marker; as the Programme Director had stated on work placement that I would fail certain written assignments.   When I asked why (as this is not correct procedure) the Programme Director stated that she had not marked any of my papers and so could not give me a reason, but that she was looking for certain information.   The named Lecturer and the Programme Director both gave me 35% for my work, which was meant to be marked anonymously.   All feedback from the Programme Director and the named Lecturer was destructive and in no way constructive whatsoever.   The named Lecturer also stated that I needed to carry out an assessment in the community to provide evidence of suicide among men in Ireland.   This is not required for writing an essay.   Curiously, the named Lecturer awarded another named student 70% for stating that there was high rate of suicide among men in Ireland and this student used the same reference as I did to state same.   This student was not penalised for not using an assessment in the community.   The named Lecturer also tried to rewrite some quotes I used.   This is a violation of another authors work and intellectual property – the intellectual property of a named expert in Health Promotion.   The cover sheet is missing from the feedback sheet and the named Lecturer is constantly referring to a different essay title.   I have been asked to resubmit three essays before my work goes to the external marker before 18^th May 2015 and also work 40 hours per week as a research assistant in the research centre.   It is illegal to request those hours from an adult in one week.   This is a breach of policy.   Furthermore, the named Lecturer and the Programme Director did not give me any marks for my contribution in the groups and the named Director sent me an email to state that she would take a further 20% off my course work and group presentations for trivia.
12. During the Meeting I explained that since I experienced discrimination on the grounds of religion my grades have taken a very dramatic drop 2.1 grades to 2.2 and now I am being called to a meeting to be told I would be getting 40% and that I had failed two essays.   I made it clear at the Meeting that the Programme Director had given me a very different essay from everyone else on the Course, and on a topic that we did not have any lectures or tutorials on.   All others on the MA Course were given lectures and tutorials on their essay topic.   The Programme Director failed, refused and neglected to discuss this at the Meeting and denied all unprofessional conduct.   The Programme Director kept referring to my medical condition (Lumbago) as an excuse for me failing. (the complainant refers here to an entity that is not a party to these proceedings which is not repeated here)
13. At the Meeting on 01 May 2015 in the Head of Discipline’s Office a named friend of the Complainant was there as a witness to give evidence of the online bullying from staff and students that I had been subjected to, and which resulted in the closing of my Legion of May Society.   The Head of Discipline failed, refused and neglected to allow the Complainant’s friend to give any evidence whatsoever.   This illustrates the level of abuse we are subjected to at the University and demonstrates direct and indirect discrimination on the grounds of religion.
14. (The Complainant refers here to an entity that is not a party to these proceedings which is not repeated here)
15. I pray that this Equality Tribunal will grant the appropriate redress, compensation and any other remedy that the Tribunal sees fit to grant.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

Following the withdrawal of the Complainant from the Hearing the Respondent stated that the Complainant had been advised and informed that the Hearing would go ahead if he withdrew from it, that accordingly he had knowingly withdrawn from the Hearing in the full knowledge that the Hearing would proceed in his absence.   The Respondent said that the Complainant had presented his complaint (in the Complaint Form).   The Respondent then presented their case.

The Respondent said the Complainant attended at the University as an undergraduate student from September 2010 to June 2015, at which stage he completed a Bachelor of Law (LLB) Degree.

In January 2014, the Complainant pre-registered for post-graduate studies to commence in September 2014.   He initially applied for a Masters in Law, but appears not to have proceeded with that choice, instead applying successfully for the Masters Programme with the discipline of Heath Promotion.   The Respondent said that all students, both undergraduate and postgraduates, are required to adhere to the College Student Code of Conduct.

The Respondent said they have no record whatsoever of the Complainant attending as either an undergraduate or postgraduate student for the academic year, September 2013 to June 2014.   Neither was the Complainant employed in any capacity during that period, either as a research assistant or an employee of any other kind.   The Respondent said this is of significant relevance as the Complainant’s is seeking to identify events dating from December 2013 – a time he was not a student and thus not a service user within the meaning of the Equal Status Act – as the starting point for his alleged discrimination on religious grounds.

The Respondent said that the Complainant’s participation in the Masters in Health Promotion Programme was by no means automatically guaranteed.   It was and remains a competitive course that would have been oversubscribed.   His application and supporting documentation would have been assessed and considered.   The MA in Health Promotion is a taught course with additional assignment work undertaken over two semesters, which is ultimately assessed by the academic staff overseeing the Programme and an external examiner from another university; it is entirely objective. The Course is overseen and run by the Professor who is the Head of Discipline and by the Programme Director.  

The Respondent said that neither of these two persons had any knowledge or involvement of any kind of the prior events referred to by the Complainant in these proceedings dating back to December 2013.   In fact they knew nothing of the Complainant save for the facts contained in his Course Application Form and a recollection that he had attended open day events run by the Discipline of Health Promotion, showing an interest in pursuing a post graduate in this area. The Complainant was successful in his application to the MA Course.   He was offered a place on 19^th September 2014.   He was fully informed of the requirements of the Course in terms of assignments, examinations and the required 25 day work placement and he was also provided with access to the Student Code of Conduct, he was treated the same way at all other students in that regard.

The Respondent said that it is the case that the Complainant was absent for a very significant part of the first semester of the Masters Programme from September to December 2014.   He would have submitted medical certificates to the Respondent’s Administration Office (the detail of which would not have been seen by the two persons referred to in the preceding paragraph).  

The Respondent said that such an amount of absence would naturally give rise to concerns regarding the potential impact on the Complainant’s ability to meet lecture commitments and assignments. As with any student the Programme Director would have made contact with him in general terms offering support and assurance.   He was treated the very same way as all other students in this regard and was treated sensitively and fairly with a range of support and accommodation mechanisms available to him.

The Respondent said that the amount of absence was so significant that the Complainant in fact made initial enquires with them about dropping out of the full-time Course or deferring the remainder of the MA Programme and he was issued with forms setting out the options available in that regard.   Ultimately he chose to return in January 2015 for the second semester and was fully supported by the Respondent and the two persons mentioned in the preceding two paragraphs in particular.   The Respondent said that the support shown to the Complainant runs contrary to the view that he was treated less favourably and in fact his treatment was very much more favourable during his time with the MA Health Promotion Programme.

There were two immediate issues that required consideration upon the Complainant’s return in January 2015.   Firstly there were a number of pieces of work that were now outstanding, 2 assignments, an exam, a research proposal due and dissertation preparation sessions not attended.   Secondly, all students were required to complete a 25 day placement as part of the Course Programme.   Towards the end of January and the start of February 2015, the Head of the Discipline and the Programme Director would have been scheduling meetings with each of the students to provide feedback on their work, their performance and their assessment.   However, for the Complainant, clearly there was a lack of sufficient actual work to assess and report on given his position.   However they went ahead and met with the Complainant for a pre-arranged Meeting on 27^th January 2015.   At that Meeting they agreed to format a full set of revised submission dates.   Those revised dates allowed for revisions to the full set of assignments across both semesters, so that the Complainant would not be left in a position where he would be left trying to cram the first semester into the existing timetable of the second semester.   To avoid that, a full set of revised assignment dates was provided that would allow him enough space and time to undertake the work involved.  

His Assessment Meeting, now being undertaken with his fellow students, would essentially be adjourned until enough of those assignments has been undertaken to allow for such an assessment to have some value.   In fact the Meeting did not take place until 1^st May 2016.   This was a measure of the genuine attempts being made to facilitate the Complainant and runs contrary to the later allegations that he was being discriminated against on the grounds of religion.

Regarding work placements, 3 work placements were preliminarily identified for the Complainant, but none of them materialised and the circumstances were problematic and concerning.   The Complainant acted in an inappropriate and inconsistent manner, at times refusing and challenging interview appointments, challenging external placement co-ordinators on their processes and even threatening to issue a complaint to an external body regarding their own placement co-ordinator, regarding their unavailability to meet at a certain time and date.   In circumstances where the Programme relies on the participation and goodwill of such external bodies and of their being receptive to such student placements, these actions were concerning to the Respondent.  

The Respondent said that despite all these supports the Complainant continued to struggle with the Course commitments and his level of performance on the Course became a cause of concern.

The Respondent said that a very serious issue did arise in April 2015, when the Complainant issued an email on 1^st April 2015, to a named external body that was copied to the Head of Discipline.   This email along with attachment appeared to seek support from the external body for the Complainant’s entry into a competition for a named external Trust; it also attached the assignment undertaken by the Complainant for the MA Health Promotion, which at that point had not yet been assessed.   The assignment involved a written project on the design of a health promotion policy or intervention.   The assignment undertaken by the Complainant included a mock poster relating to his chosen area of study for this assignment.   The Respondent said that as can be seen from this email chain, the Head of Discipline became seriously concerned that the Respondent’s Health Promotion Research Centre was being inaccurately and improperly linked to this request for support.   In addition, given the wording of the poster, there was a real concern that the Complainant was suggesting that he actually was a Research Assistant at the Health Promotion Research Centre, which certainly was not the case.   The Head of Discipline thus was compelled to clarify the factual position to the external body.

The Respondent said that no one within the University can simply allow students to organise and undertake research on members of the public without proper oversight and supervision and without prior approval.   There was a very serious concern that the Complainant would be implying a degree of legitimate University sanction for such a project proposal was it to be left unaddressed.     Furthermore, this was an assignment for the MA Programme that had not yet been assessed and therefore the Complainant’s email to the external body was doubly concerning for the Head of Discipline, her causes for concern were solely in relation to these factors.   The issue of the Complainant’s religion was of no concern or consequences to the Head of Discipline and was not a factor in her actions.

The Head of Discipline and the Programme Director decided that they would leave over the addressing of this matter with the Complainant until his April assignment had been completed.

The Respondent said that with the Complainant now engaging with the Course in the 2^nd Semester, a series of issues began to arise regarding his performance and the appropriateness of his behaviour over that period of time, which included the following:

• The Complainant had on one occasion been extremely aggressive and abusive with the Head of Discipline, when he shouted abuse at her from a colleague’s office telephone regarding an enquiry he was making about his Course timetable.
• The Complainant had submitted an assignment that the University ‘Turn tin’ anti-plagiarism software package had judged to be a 69% match with a previously submitted assignment of his.   He was essentially submitting the substantially the same piece of work for 2 separate course assignments.   Such ‘auto-plagiarism’, as it is termed, is prohibited.   There had been concern about the Complainant’s email communications regarding his refusal to submit course work in a format that could be read by the ‘Turn tin’ anti-plagiarism package as required of all students under the Discipline’s Regulations
• It was also the case that examination and assignment results were of a poor standard and were giving rise to the Complainant’s ability to complete and pass the course.   A number of assignments were overdue, despite the re-arranged timelines and others had received poor marks.   The Respondent included an email exchange between the Head of Discipline and the Complainant in which he thanks her for once again restructuring his course and work placement to facilitate him.   The Respondent said the tone of the emails is very much supportive and appreciative and they are not in any way indicative of the kind of accusations levelled at the Head of Discipline only 2 weeks later.
• The Respondent submitted a copy of the list of the Complainant’s marks for the course assignment.   The Respondent said many of the marks were either “incomplete” or “fail” and, despite his later claim that he was securing 85% marks, the results speak for themselves   Certainly he never performed at that level while a student with the MA Health Promotion Programme.   His marks were of legitimate and sufficient concerns to justify the follow-on feedback that was then provided.

The Respondent said that all of the above together with the posters/external body issue were to be raised at the adjourned Feedback Meeting that the Head of Discipline and the Programme Director had not been properly in a position to undertake in February in conjunction with the other student feedback meetings.

The meeting was to be held on 30^th April 2015, but was adjourned at the request of the Complainant to the following day.

After the first attempted meeting of 30^th April, the Complainant sent an email to the Vice President (VP) of Student Experience requesting her attendance at the Meeting on 1^st May, and making wild allegations against an unnamed lecturer, claiming they had stated repeatedly to him; “Fuck the Prophet Elijah, I hate all religions” and “Fuck the bible.”   Ultimately the VP was not in a position to attend at such short notice, but she did offer to make herself available for a meeting upon his request.   The Respondent said that for some reason the Complainant also chose to copy the Irish Catholic email address with this correspondence.   Within his email to the VP the Complainant claims that he had sent “several emails over the last few weeks in relation to bullying and harassment in relation to discrimination on grounds of religion” no such complaint had been received.  

The Respondent said it is true to say that a disparate series of emails were copied to the VP (which was submitted to the Hearing), i.e.:

• There were emails to the Law Society about an issues he was having with them
• There were emails to the Fees Office challenging the level of the sum due by him to that Office.
• By 15^th April 2015, he begins to reference issues with his getting a work placement and alleged (but unspecified) allegations of bullying and harassment, “which have been referred to the Equality Tribunal” and a threat to join the University in his apparent complaint/referral.   The Respondent said that these unsubstantiated email allegations can be contrasted with the starkly different tone within the emails from the same period when the Complainant is thanking the Programme Director for her support.   The Respondent said it is also the case that there was no equality claim or complaint in being against them either internally or externally.
• Then late on 30^th April 2015, the VP and the Fees Office are emailed late on the evening of 30^th April 2015, with the Irish Catholic being copied on one of the emails.

The Respondent said that those emails were a complete mystery to both the Fees Office and the VP and neither had any idea what complaint or what alleged bullying the Complainant was referring to and proceedings, if any, he was issuing.   The VP wrote to the Complainant enquiring about the nature and status of the proceedings referred to.   The Complainant’s response was to issue a Draft Affidavit purporting to refer to Law Society Proceedings and requesting by email of 5^th May 2015, that the Respondent “settle matters within a reasonable period of time” and he would then “refrain from joining (the University) as a second respondent in the proceedings”.   A further more explicit request with an “offer to settle” for €2,555.00c was received from the Complainant on 8^th May 2015.

The Respondent submitted that this series of correspondence was entirely confusing and impenetrable and they had no idea what the Complainant was seeking to undertake or why.   The Respondent said there are very clear internal processes in place for submitting complaints and they certainly do not require the issuing of affidavits.   The Respondent again said that they rely heavily on the very significant disparity between those wild and unclear communications and the Complainant’s very friendly and appreciative communications with the Programme Director only hours apart, and the Respondent said that this cuts to the credibility of the Complainant and fatally undermines the complaints he next goes on to make and it was submitted that he was clearly simply “planting seeds” late on the evening of 30^th April 2015 when he was emailing allegations to the VP and the Fees Office, so that he could seek to bring them as live issues into the Meeting the following day.

At the Meeting on 1^st May neither the Head of Discipline nor the Programme Director had any idea of the emails the Complainant had issued the previous night to the VP, the Fees Office and the ‘Irish Catholic’, nor were they a party to whatever issues were ongoing at that time with the Law Society.   The Respondent said that at the request of the Complainant and with the consent of all present the Meeting was recorded and a full transcription was submitted to the Hearing.   The Complainant also had someone from the Student Welfare Office and another student invited by him to join the Meeting after it began.

The Respondent said it can be seen from the transcript the Meeting became difficult and fractious, with the Complainant making wildly slanderous accusations at the Programme Director in which he wrongly and without any foundation attributed to her a series of extremely abusive quotes.   The Respondent said that it cannot be stressed strongly enough that the Respondent and the Programme Director both absolutely reject all of those accusations.   The Programme Director had never heard these allegations and she found it both bizarre and deeply worrying that a student that she had done so much to support and assist could make such vile statements about her.   The Respondent said they have a detailed complaints procedure that they would expect to be invoked had such abusive comments actually being made.   The alleged comments were deeply offensive to the Programme Director who is herself a person of faith, and the wild accusations made caused her extreme stress and anxiety and had a severe impact on her.

The Respondent said this Meeting on 1^st May was also the first time that issues of the ‘Legion of Mary’ had been brought up as some form of underlying concern by the Complainant.

He had never submitted any form of complaint to the Respondent regarding any form of underlying discriminatory concern with either the Head of Discipline or the Programme Director, neither of whom had any knowledge of the Legion of Mary Issue, accordingly those statement were simply mystifying to them.  

The Respondent said they object in the strongest terms to the attempt by the Complainant to root his complaint in this much earlier matter.   This was a matter that arose far outside of the statutory 6 month time limit provided for in the Equal Status Act and at a point when the Complainant was not in fact a ‘service user’ of the Respondent’s, his not being in college at the time.

The Respondent said that notwithstanding the foregoing the objective facts relating to the December 2013 issues are:

• A series of posters appeared around the Campus and gave rise to multiple complaints from students of the University.
• Within their text, the posters were purporting to be issued in conjunction with the University Legion of Mary Society and they focused on the idea of homosexuals in a manner that was deemed by many to be offensive by their implication.   A copy was submitted along with a press release from the Respondent at the time and they submitted that it was a measured and reasoned position for them to take
• The Respondent said that initially the Society was suspended.
• There followed confirmation from the Legion of Mary in Galway that they did not affiliate with the University Legion of Mary.
• Essentially the Society ceased and disbanded for the lack of required external affiliation.
• The Complainant has himself submitted documentation, dated 6^th March 2014, which records the former Auditor’s confirmation to him that the Society had confirmed to the VP that they had agreed not to use the Legion of Mary name, they were considering setting up a Thomas Aquinas Society and indicated that with only 3 weeks of term let they would not be setting up anything at that point.
• The University Societies Co-Ordination Group is a majority student run body who manage and oversee such societies.   It is a condition of that Group that societies must have external affiliation in order to carry on and practice as a University Society identifying with its external organisation.   That is the same for all such societies, whether they are religious, political or charitable, without the support of their outside name sponsor, they cease and that is what arose in the case of the Legion of Mary.   The Society self-disbanded for lack of affiliation.
• The Respondent said the Complainant may well have been a member or official within the University Legion of Mary Society.   The Respondent said that however, he was not a student of the University at the time and it stretches credibility beyond reason to suggest that the Head of Discipline or the Programme Director, who had no knowledge or involvement in these matters, were motivated by these issues from 1.5 years previous in moving to address a genuine, objective and legitimate concerns with the Complainant’s performance and behaviour on their Course on 1^st May 2015.

The Respondent said that despite the difficult meeting of 1^st May, and as agreed an email was issued from the Head of Discipline and the Programme Director on that date to the Complainant identifying the options that were open to him to resubmit his missing or failed assignments.   He was given new deadline date for the assignments and was notified that the external examiners would assess his full portfolio of assessed work.   As matters stood the Complainant was going to fail the Course for want of assignments and poor Course marks and it was now May 2015, with only weeks of the MA Programme left.  

Despite this further offer, the Complainant’s first response was an email of 5^th May 2015 to state that he was “now seeking legal advice” and he would “revert in due course”   A reminder email was issued by the Programme Director on 11^th May 2015, seeking an update on his progress with the new assignment.   The Complainant responded on 12^th May attaching a Draft Affidavit and threatening District Court and Equality Tribunal cases and now also threatening the Programme Director personally with proceedings.   In his final email the Complainant confirms that he had been “advised to contact (the VP) and the Dean’s Office to invoke the Anti-Bullying Policy”.   The Respondent said that despite this and despite numerous threats of legal action to various persons within the University, the Complainant never invoked the procedures available to him, which the Respondent submitted fundamentally undermines his current complaints; instead he issued a range of legal threats and demands for settlement from various University staff, which the Respondent submitted cuts to his credibility is these matters.

The Respondent said that the behaviour and attitude of the Complainant, which included his purported “service” of his draft affidavit on the Programme Director in front of her colleagues, was objectionable and intimidating and was entirely at odds with the supports that the Respondent and in particular the Programme Director and the Head of Discipline, had set in place for his benefit.   The position became unbearable for them; it was hugely consuming for and deeply impacted on them personally and they found his behaviour to be increasingly alarming, intimidating and aggressive.   The issues were extremely serious and their attempts to address and resolve matters were simply resulting in escalating behavioural issues from the Complainant.   They felt they had no other option but to deal with the issues formally through a written complaint of 12^th May 2015, for alleged breaches of the Student Code of Conduct by the Complainant.

In accordance with Clause 6.4 of the University Student Code of Conduct, the Complainant was suspended from the University on 13^th May 2014, pending the outcome of the Discipline Committee Procedure.

The Respondent said that Clause 6 of the Student Code of Conduct provides that a Designated Authority is empowered to investigate alleged offences, which can be dealt with either summarily as provided by Clause 6.1 or referred directly to the Discipline Committee.   The VP is the Designated Authority; upon receipt of the complaints she formed the view that this was not a matter appropriate to the summary procedure and it was referred to the Secretary of the Discipline Committee in line with Clause 6.2.   The Discipline Committee is provided for in the Student Code of Conduct at Clause 5 and it consists of a Chairperson appointed by the President of the University, 3 members of the Student’s Union, nominated by that Union and 4 members selected by the Registrar and Deputy President from the Panel nominated by the Academic Council.  

The Respondent said that the VP, who for some reason was personally named in these proceedings, has no role within the Discipline Committee and does not sit on that Committee, administer or manage it.   The Committee wrote to the Complainant notifying him of the establishment of the Committee Hearing and provided him with a copy of the complaints.

The decision made by the Discipline Committee was to uphold the complaint of alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct and to recommend the immediate and permanent withdrawal of the Complainant from the University and it was their decision and not that of the VP.

The Respondent said the Complainant chose not to attend the Discipline Committee Hearing on 3^rd June 2015, despite being on notice of it, nor did he seek an adjournment.     The Complainant was informed of the outcome of the of the Discipline Committee considerations and of his right to appeal that decision and the process for such appeals, but he chose not to appeal that decision.   The Respondent said that the only response from the Complainant on the establishment of the Discipline Committee was his correspondence to the VP in which he states that he has written to the Equality Tribunal to request that she be “joined as a Respondent in his equality claim as per my affidavit.”   He further stated that he wished to submit a formal complaint and would not be returning to the University unless he was provided with an appropriate remedy, being is his view “an apology and compensation”.   The Respondent said there is no mechanism for the joining of the Respondent to an Equality Tribunal case by way of the service of an affidavit, the Equal Status Act does not provide for such a mechanism.   The Respondent said that they held off responding to this somewhat irregular correspondence, but they did issue a full response by letter of 18^th September 2015 in relation to the Affidavit and a Form ESI, that was received by them on 18^th September 2015.   The Respondent said that a further letter to the Equality Tribunal from the Complainant was also copied to the VP and again the content and import of this was a mystery to the Respondent, referring as it does to another University, the ‘Irish Times’ and the Minister for Education.

The Respondent said that having been permanently expelled from the University, and in any event not having completed his assignments, the Complainant did not graduate from the MA Programme and thus it is entirely correct to state he did not attend at the Graduation in circumstances where he had not in fact graduated.

The Respondent said that they rely on Section 21 of the Equal Status Act.   Subsection 1 of that Section provides that a person who claims that prohibited conduct has been directed against her or him, may, subject to this Section, seek redress by referring the Case to the Director.   Subsection 2 goes on to state that before seeking such redress a Complainant shall, within two months after the prohibited conduct is alleged to have occurred (or within two months of the last such occurrence), notify the Respondent in writing of the nature of the allegations and the Complainant’s intention if not satisfied with the response to the allegation to seek redress under the Equal Status Act.   Subsection 3 allows for an application to be made to the Director for an extension of the two months to a maximum of four months.   However no such application has been made in the instant case.   The Respondent said that there is a process where “exceptionally” and “where it is fair and reasonable in particular circumstances”, the four month notification provision can be waived; however no such case has been made in the instant case.  

The Respondent said it is their position that there are no such exceptional circumstances and that it would not be fair and reasonable in such circumstances to disallow the standard notification requirement under the Equal Status Act.

The Respondent said that ultimately it is the case that the Director is prohibited by subsection 4 from investigating a complaint unless they are satisfied that either the Respondent has replied to the required notification or that at least one month has elapsed after it was sent to the Respondent.

The Respondent said the complaint was received by the WRC on 5^th November 2015; at Part 4 the Complainant has stated that notification was sent to the Respondent in on 15^th August 2015 and that a reply was received on 18^th September 2015.   The Complainant also claims that he had written within two months of the complaint itself explaining what the complaint was about, but he was not satisfied with the reply.   The Respondent submitted that this categorically is not the case.    

The Respondent said that the details of the complaint at set out at Point 7 of the Complaint Form.   The last date of alleged discrimination on the grounds of religion is specifically recorded by the Complainant as being 19^th October 2015, when he claims he was subjected to alleged public humiliation when the Respondent did not provide him with his MA at the MA Programme Graduation Ceremony.   The Respondent said it is a matter of fact that this is the first time this element of a complaint has ever been raised and no notification was, or indeed could have been, issued to the Respondent of that complaint dated 15^th August 2015, given that it was two months before the alleged latest occurrence.

The Respondent said that the remainder of the issues referred to in Section 7 of the Complaint Form, together with the issues raised in the Complaint’s so called ‘Affidavit’, either in draft or sworn format, all relate to issues that arose a the Meeting of 1^st May 2015 or were prior to that date.

The Respondent said that Section 21(6) on the Equal Status Act provides for a mandatory statute of limitations of six months for a Complainant to issue a complaint for redress in respect of any prohibited conduct.   The Respondent said there is a process at Section 21(6) (b) where an application can be made by a Complainant to Director for an extension of that period up to 12 months from the last date of the occurrence.  

The Respondent said that however, no such application has been made in the instant case and it is their position that there is no basis for any such application in circumstances where the Complainant has demonstrated that he was capable of submitting an equality complaint against the Law Society of Ireland (details submitted) and was confidently threatening legal action against the Respondent well within the normal 6 month timeframe.

The Respondent said that it is also the case that the alleged root cause of the alleged discrimination (although strenuously denied by them) stretches back to the Complainant’s reliance on events relating to the Legion of Mary that took place in December, the Respondent said that firstly those events are far outside the 6 month or even the potential 12 month period for presentation of complaints.  

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant has not identified or established a prima facie case that links the events complained of in his Affidavit and his Complaint Form as further acts of discrimination that could be deemed within time and could be deemed to be connected to the much earlier Legion of Mary issues that arose in December 2013: the Complainant was not a student at the time; he did not pursue any form of complaint against the University’s Societies Co-Ordination Group relating to those issues and neither the Head of Discipline or the Programme Director had any involvement or knowledge of the detailed issues now complained of in relation to December 2013, that could have underpinned such victimisation or discriminatory treatment.

The Respondent said that the sole underlying objective ground that gave rise to the Meeting of 1^st May 2015 and the subsequent expulsion of the Complaint from the University were his own actions, behaviour and performance within the MA Programme.

The Respondent said that the Section 22 of the Equal Status Act provides the Director with the authority to dismiss a complaint at any stage if they she/he is of the opinion that it has been made in bad faith or is frivolous, vexatious or misconceived or relates to a trivial matter.   The Respondent sought the invoking of this provision in circumstances where no prima facia case has been established of discrimination on grounds of religion.

The Respondent said that the Complainant had merely asserted that he had an involvement in issues over 1.5 years prior to the Meeting of 1^st May 2015 and his follow on Discipline Committee Meeting and expulsion.   The Respondent said there is no prima facie link between his claim of a religious discriminatory ground and the treatment he alleges: merely stating there is a link is not enough: the parties involved are different: the timeline is stretched far past any potential connection The Respondent said that to allow those assertions to stick, even as prima facia claim of discrimination, would require to completely ignore the actual underlying objective actions and facts that arose in the lead up to 1^st May and the later expulsion.

The Respondent said that they do not accept that the Complainant was treated less favourably, and he has failed to identify either within the Affidavit or within the Complaint Form any acts of religious discrimination.

The Respondent said the Complainant was seeking to pursue a complaint that he was sexually harassed or that the Respondent allowed him to be sexually harassed.   The Respondent said there is not a single scintilla of evidence put forward to support such a claim.

The Respondent said the Complainant has made the claim that the VP “organised a disciplinary to get rid of me on the pretext that I was in breach of a student code of conduct” and he further alleges that this amounted to an “abuse of power….similar to that of closing down my (University) Legion of Mary Society.”   The Respondent said there is not a shred of evidence put forward in any submission by the Complainant to support such a wild accusation.    As stated in detail in the foregoing submissions that Society itself disbanded upon the disaffiliation by its parent Organisation the Legion of Mary.

The Respondent said they object to any attempt by the Complainant to include within the parameters of his claim/complaint the matters set out in his purported Affidavit (either in draft or later sworn form) given that this is not the format by which a Complaint can be made.

The Respondent said that there is no basis whatsoever to justify the allegations of discriminatory and less favourable treatment on the grounds of religion; there are objective straightforward grounds for the steps taken by the Respondent.

The Respondent said that for all of the foregoing reasons the complaints are not well founded and they should be rejected and dismissed in full.

Findings and Decision:

Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s) 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 circumstances in which theComplainant withdrew from the Hearing of his complaints under the Equal Status Act are laid out in pages 2 and 3 of this document.  

I am completely satisfied that the Complainant withdrew from the Hearing in the full knowledge of the consequences of his withdrawal; i.e. that the Hearing and the Investigation would continue in his absence if he withdrew and he was twice informed of this fact by me and advised to think carefully about this before withdrawing.

I note that the Complainant withdrew from the Hearing very early into it, no more than 20 minutes and before there was any discussion whatsoever on the substantative issue of the complaints submitted by him.  I also note that the Complainant chose not to stay at the Hearing and directly present his case/complaints and answer any questions in that respect.  

It should also be noted that the Complainant chose not to stay at the Hearing to hear the presentation of the Respondent’s response to his case/complaints and to challenge or contest any element of the Respondent’s position.   This means that the Respondent’s direct evidence and submissions were not contested by the Complainant.   This in turn means, that in accordance with best evidence rules I must prefer the direct evidence of the Respondent rather than the indirect evidence of the Complainant.

The Complainant’s Complaint Form was received on 5^th November 2014.   At Part 4 of that Form which deals with essential prior notification, the Complainant states that notification was sent to the Respondent on 15^th August 2015.   At Part 7 of that Form the Complainant states that the last date of the alleged discrimination 19^th October 2015 when he “was subject to public humiliation when the University did not provide me with my MA.   My friends do not understand why I was not at the graduation.”  

Plainly it is the case that the Complainant could not possibly have on 15^th August 2015, in a Notification Form sent to the Respondent, complained of an event that did not occur till 19^th October 2015!   Accordingly it is not possible to accept the information contained in the Complaint’s Complaint Form and upon which his complaints are grounded.   It is also the case that this complaint also could not be included in an affidavit of the even earlier date of 22^nd May 2015 as it had not occurred at that date.

I note that the remainder of the issues referred to by the Complainant in his Complaint Form and his Affidavit refer or relate to matters that either arose at a Meeting on 1^st May 2015 or earlier, in some cases much earlier than that date.   This in turn raises issues of the time limits for the submission of complaints.

Section 21(2) of the Equal Status Act 2000 states: “Before seeking redress under this section the complainant—

(a)   shall within 2 months after the prohibited conduct is alleged to have occurred, or where more than one incident of prohibited conduct is alleged to have occurred, within 2 months after the last such occurrence, notify the respondent in writing of—

(i)                  the nature of the allegation,

(ii)                the complainant’s intention, if not satisfied with the respondent’s response to the allegation, to seek redress by referring the case to the Director

and

(b)   may in that notification, with a view to assisting the complainant in deciding whether to refer the case to the Director, question the respondent in writing so as to obtain material information and if the respondent so wishes, reply to any such questions.”  

Plainly the Complaint could not have referred in a Notification Form to the Respondent of 15^th August 2015 to an incident that did not occur until more than 2 months later on 19^th October 2015. The last incident referred to by the Complainant in his complaints prior to that date is the Meeting of 1^st May 2015 and plainly this is more than 2 months before the Complainant notified the Respondent in writing of alleged prohibited conduct on 15^th August 2015.  

I note that no application was made by the Complainant for any extension to this normal period and accordingly it is the case that the Complainant has not complied with the procedures within the time limits laid down before seeking redress under the Equal Status Act.   Accordingly, I must find and declare that the Complainant has not complied with the provisions of Section 21(2) of the Equal Status Act 2000 necessary for him to be enabled to take a complaint or seek redress under that Act.   On this basis alone I must find and decide that the complaint is not well founded, that it is rejected and is not upheld.

It is further the case that the above would also mean that the last alleged prohibited conduct properly referred occurred on 1^st May 2015 and this would mean it was not within the time limits laid down in Section 21(6) of the Equal Status Act 2000, which states: “Subject to subsection (7), a claim for redress in respect of prohibited conduct may not be referred under this section after the end of the period of 6 months from the date of the occurrence of the prohibited conduct to which the case relates or, as the case may be, the date of its most recent occurrence.” - and I note that no application was made by the Complaint in accordance with the provisions of Section 21(7) of the Equal Status Act 2000 for any extension of that normal period for the referral/presentation of the complaint.   Accordingly I must find and declare that the Complainant has not complied with the provisions of Section 21(6) of the Equal Status Act 2000 necessary for to be enabled to take a complaint or seek redress under that Act.   Again on that basis I must find and decide that the complaint is not well founded, that it is rejected and is not upheld.

These above two decisions should be sufficient to dispose of the matter, however in the interest of completeness and for the avoidance of doubt I will now proceed to issue my findings and decisions in relation to the substantitive issues/complaints submitted by the Complainant and included at the beginning of this document as follows.

I can see no credible evidence that the Complainant was discriminated against or treated less favourably based on or because of his religion.

According to the complaints submitted by the Complainant the alleged root cause or starting point of his discrimination and less favourable treatment and the matter on which he significantly relies upon for his subsequent complaints are what he describes as the “closing down of my College Legion of Mary Society”.   This event occurred in December 2013, and apart from the fact that this is almost two years before he submitted his complaint the Complainant was not at that time a student or employee and thus was not a service user within the meaning of the Equal Status Act, accordingly he has no basis on which to base a complaint in that respect.   The University Societies Co-Ordination Group (USCG) manages and oversees such societies, it is a majority student run body.   It is a condition that societies must have legitimate external affiliation in order to carry on and practice identifying with its external organisation.   It transpired that the Legion of Mary Society referred to by the Complainant did not have such affiliation and without the support of their outside name sponsor they cease and that is what arose in the instant case, essentially they self-disbanded for lack of affiliation.   It is also the case that none of the 3 persons named by the Complainant in his complaint were in involved in any way or had any hand act or part in the matter of the College Legion of Mary Society.   I find and decide that this element of the complaints is rejected by me and it is not upheld.   I note that this fact undermines all of the subsequent complaints.

The Complainant states that the College Vice President (the VP) “organised a Disciplinary to get rid of me on the pretext that I was in breach of the Student Code of Conduct.”   This, a most serious assertion, is not correct and is not in accordance with established facts.   In accordance with Clause 6 of the Student Code of Conduct the named VP is the Designated Authority to whom complaints are made.   In this instance two other members of staff submitted written complaints for alleged breaches of the Student Code of Conduct by the Complainant to the VP.   The VP formed the view that this was not a matter appropriate for the summary procedure and so in accordance with 6.2 she referred it to the Discipline Committee.   That was the entire extent of the VP’s involvement in the matter.   The Discipline Committee consists of a Chairperson appointed by the President, 3 members of the Students Union nominated by that Union and 4 members selected by the Registrar and Deputy Registrar from the panel nominated by the Academic Council.   The VP has no role within the Discipline Committee, she does not sit on that Committee, she does not administer or manage that Committee or have any responsibility or authority arising from that Committee.   The decision to uphold the alleged breaches of the Student Code of Conduct and to recommend the permanent expulsion and removal of the Complainant from the University was made by the Discipline Committee and not by the VP.   Thus it can be seen and I find and decide that the VP did not in fact ‘organise a Disciplinary to get rid of’ the Complainant.   In addition I note that the despite being fully notified of it the Complainant chose not to attend the Discipline Committee Hearing and despite being specifically informed in writing of his right to appeal against that decision, the procedures for so doing, and the time limits for submitting such an appeal, he did not exercise his right of appeal.   These facts strongly undermine the Complainant’s complaints in this respect and in the case of the failure to appeal his expulsion or permanent withdrawal from the University the failure to appeal against this sanction implies the Complainant’s acceptance of it.   I find and decide that this element of the complaints is rejected by me and is not upheld.

Not the slightest piece of evidence was submitted that support the contention that the Complaint was sexually harassed or that the Respondent allowed him to be sexually harassed.   In the copious documentation submitted by the Complainant, including that submitted to the Respondent, there is nothing mentioned that could be construed as sexual harassment.   There is no evidence whatsoever to support any contention that the Complainant was harassed sexually or otherwise.   I find and decide that this element of the complaints is rejected by me and it is not upheld.

Nor can I see any credible evidence that the Complainant was victimised in any way by the Respondent or discriminated against by association.

I was presented with no credible evidence that the Complainant was discriminated against because of his religion, or indeed discriminated against at all.

I can see no evidence that the actions taken by the Respondent in respect of such issues as marks awarded to him, assignments made to him, accusations of auto-plagiarism, correspondence with outside bodies, work placements, discipline investigations and his expulsion or permanent withdrawal from the University was motivated or caused in any way by his religion.

The Complainant has failed to established discrimination on the grounds of religion

Decision:

Having investigated the complaints, I now make the following decision in accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act 2000.

I find and decide that the Complainant has not established a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment on the grounds of religion.

The Complainant was not discriminated against by the Respondent on the grounds of religion, the complaint is not well founded; it is rejected and is not upheld.

Dated:   16/06/2016