ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

A Bar Worker -V- A Hotel

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00002279

Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 28/07/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gerry Rooney

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 21 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 following the referral of the complaints to me by the director general, I enquired 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.

This complaint concerns a claim made by A Bar Worker (the Claimant) under the Equal Status Act 2000 that he was discriminated against by a person organisation/company who provides goods, common services or facilities, contrary to Section 3 of the Equal Status Act, 2000. The complainants claim was based on discrimination due to ground of age.

Attendance at Hearing:

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

The claimant submitted that he had been working with the respondent since the 14^th of November 2013, where he worked as a bar supervisor on an hourly rate of pay where he earned €546.66 gross per week.

The Claimant submitted that he experienced difficulties from another work colleague and supervisor and he brought these complaints to management, and he alleged that his complaints were not properly dealt with causing him to leave his employment on the 28^th of May 2015.

The Claimant submitted his complaint to the WRC on the 23^rd of March 2016 indicating that when he initially made his complaint, he brought it to the attention of the Human Rights and Equality Commission in November 2015 where he was then directed to the Workplace Relations Commission.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The respondent raised two preliminary arguments in relation to the complaints as follows:

The claim has been brought under the Equal Status Act, 2000 but the complainant was at all times an employee of the respondent. The Respondent contended that the complaint described by Claimant relates to his employment only, and not to his status as a recipient of services of the respondent. It therefore does not qualify to be heard under the Equal Status Act, 2000.

 The complaint has not been brought under the prescribed timescales of the Employment Equality Act. If it was the complainant’s intention to bring the complainant under the legislation the Claimant’s last occasion of the alleged discrimination was the 28^th of May 2015 whereas his complaint was not lodged with the Workplace Relations Commission until the 23^rd of March 2016, some 10 months later. On that basis the Respondent submitted that the complaint was in excess of the 6 months prescribed under the Employments Equality Act.

Decision:

Section 21 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance to the relevant readdress provision under Section 27 of the Act.

In relation to the Equal Status Act, Section 5(1) of that act, states that “a person shall not discriminate in disposing of goods to the public generally or a section of the public or when providing a service, whether the disposal or provision is for consideration or otherwise and whether the service provided can be availed of only by a section of the public.”

As the alleged discrimination is solely in relation to the employment relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent it cannot be heard under the Equal Status Act and therefore the claim must fail.

Dated:   21/10/2016