ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00002246
Complaint for Resolution:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00003033-001 | 4th March 2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23rd August 2016
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Procedure:
On the 4th March 2016, the complainant submitted a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to the Equal Status Acts. The complainant is a customer and the respondent is a public house.
The complaint was scheduled for adjudication on the 23rd August 2016. The complainant was in attendance and was represented by a firm of solicitors. At the time the adjudication was scheduled to commence, it was apparent that there was no appearance by or on behalf of the respondent. I verified that the respondent was on notice of the time, date and venue of the adjudication and waited some time to accommodate their late arrival. Having taken these steps, I proceeded with the adjudication in the absence of the respondent.
In accordance with 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.
Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:
The complainant outlined that this complaint relates to the events of the 1st January 2016. The complainant is a member of the Traveller community. The events arose when he attended a public house in a named town. The complainant said that this was the first time he had visited this town and also the first occasion he attended this public house. The complainant was accompanied by a friend who knew the owner of the establishment. When they entered the public house, the complainant observed that it was not really busy and he knew some of the people inside, also members of the Traveller community. He shook their hands and went to the bar, where he asked for a drink. The bar man replied “I can’t serve you” and “I am not serving you”. The barman then made reference to the complainant being a member of the Traveller community. The complainant challenged the barman and referred to the presence of other members of the Traveller community in the establishment. The barman replied that the complainant was not from the town. The complainant then left the premises.
The complainant said that these events made him feel very small and he cannot describe how it made him feel. He said that it was unfair to have been singled out as a member of the Traveller community. The complainant did not know whether the respondent provided accommodation and did not think this was the case.
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:
The respondent did not attend the adjudication and did not make submissions to it.
Findings and reasoning:
The complaint is made pursuant to the Equal Status Acts. The complainant says that he was denied service in a public house on grounds of his membership of the Traveller community. He asserts that this is discrimination on prohibited grounds.
The first question to determine is whether the complaint is captured by section 19 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 2003. This provision prevents the Equality Tribunal (and its successor, the Workplace Relations Commission) from hearing certain complaints of discrimination; redress must instead be sought at the District Court.
The relevant provisions of section 19 state as follows:
19.—(1) In this section—
“Act of 2000” means the Equal Status Act 2000;
“Authority” means the Equality Authority;
“Court” means the District Court;
“discrimination” means discrimination within the meaning of the Act of 2000, but does not include discrimination in relation to—
(a) the provision of accommodation or any services or amenities related to accommodation, or
(b) ceasing to provide accommodation or any such services or amenities;
“prohibited conduct” means discrimination against, or sexual harassment or harassment of, or permitting the sexual harassment or harassment of a person in contravention of Part II (Discrimination and Related Activities) of the Act of 2000 on, or at the point of entry to, licensed premises.
(2) A person who claims that prohibited conduct has been directed against him or her on, or at the point of entry to, licensed premises may apply to the District Court for redress.
(11) (a) The Act of 2000 shall cease to apply in relation to prohibited conduct occurring on, or at the point of entry to, licensed premises on or after the commencement of this section.
(b) Claims relating to prohibited conduct so occurring before such commencement shall be dealt with as if this Act had not been passed.
It is, of course, regrettable that parties such as the complainant pursue a complaint and attend an adjudication in circumstances where the complaint cannot proceed on jurisdictional grounds. Section 19 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 2003 is clear that the Equal Status Acts do not apply to prohibited conduct on, or at the point of entry to, licensed premises. The Act further provides that recourse should be made to the District Court. Given that this case relates to prohibited conduct on licensed premises, I must find that I do not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint.
Decision:
Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act.
In accordance with section 25(4) of the Equal Status Act, I conclude this investigation and I find that arising from section 19(11) of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 2003 this complaint relates to a claim of prohibited conduct on licensed premises and does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Workplace Relations Commission.
Dated: 14/11/2016