ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00000030

Complaint for Resolution:  

 Date of Adjudication Hearing: 26/10/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady

Procedure: 

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

Attendance at Hearing: 

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation: 

The complainant stood as a candidate in local elections some years ago and received adverse attention on the internet for some of his views about homosexuality which are strongly influenced by his religious convictions.

The current case has indirectly arisen from his continuing attempts to have the internet provider remove those comments and they are only indirectly relevant to this complaint, although they have given rise to it.

A question arose as to why the Data Protection Commissioner has been placed outside the ambit of the Freedom of Information Act and when this was queried by the complainant he was eventually referred to the current respondent as the best source of an explanation.

Correspondence ensued between the parties which the complainant told the hearing he regarded as inadequate and unsatisfactory, and that this represented the discriminatory action under the Equal Status Act.

He also submitted that the reason it fell within the jurisdiction of the Equal Status Act was that it was motivated by antagonism to him on the grounds of his religious views which would have been known to the respondent as a result of his public profile.

He could not provide any submission on whether the treatment he alleges was less favourable to that provided to others of a different religious outlook.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation: 

The respondent says that no prima facie case has been established. The response given to him was clear and comprehensive and the officials who were involved knew nothing of the complainant’s religious views.

He had raised a query about why the Data Protection Commissioner was exempt from the Freedom of Information legislation and he was given a detailed response as to the reasons why.

The complainant had emailed the respondent on various occasions between March 9th 2015 and April 3^rd and he received a response on each occasion.

There were further telephone queries and eventually a letter issued on May 22^nd fully setting out the position.

The authors of the main correspondence to the complainant (on May 22nd) and one of her colleagues confirmed in their direct evidence that they knew nothing of the complainant or his views from the public domain, although some of these views were shared by the complainant in correspondence with the respondent.

Findings and Conclusions

This is a case entirely without merit which does not remotely approach the standard of proof necessary to ground a prima facie case; a fact acknowledged by the complainant at the hearing who accepted that a challenge to the exclusion of the DPC from the ambit of the legislation might have to be mounted elsewhere.

In the first instance the communications from the Department being complained of as being inadequate are anything but; one letter is a comprehensive and clear response to the query raised by the complainant and, in one case, runs to over two pages.

From his own evidence to the hearing the complainant wished to establish the rationale for the exclusion of the DPC from the Freedom of Information Act. This was fully explained to him as being a result of the enactment of legislation; the respondent could go no further. This may not be acceptable to the complainant but it is hardly inadequate.

If the first strand of the complaint is a failure to provide ‘adequate’ information, then it falls at that hurdle.

However even if it had not fallen there, the suggestion that the respondent officials were motivated by some antagonism to the complainant on religious grounds is absolutely without merit. No evidence was adduced to support it and the material which passed between the parties flatly contradicts it. The Department officials dealing with the complainant had never heard of him before he contacted them.

The complaint is vexatious and entirely without merit and does not reach the standard of a prima facie case.

Therefore it fails.

Finally, on the matter of less favourable treatment there is no evidence that the respondent dealt with the complainant any less professionally than it would any other citizen.

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.

For the reasons set out above I do not uphold Complaint CA-00000047-01 and I dismiss it.

Dated:   10^th November 2016