ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00003039

Complaint for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/10/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Niamh O'Carroll Kelly

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 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:

On the 31st of October, 2015 the complainant approached the Events Manager for the respondent, in Swords Town Park where he was standing around not looking very busy and not talking to anyone else. There was a fireworks display taking place later as part of the event. He introduced himself and asked for complimentary tickets for the event. He had previously tried to buy them but they were sold out. The events manager was polite and did shake his hand. The complainant tried to explain that the prop (A giant inflatable skull with illuminated eyes he used at the front of Swords Castle to be displayed as part of the Halloween festivities was a theft of his intellectual property. He had previously used a skull with illuminated eyes in connection with Swords Castle and a float in the Swords St. Patrick’s day parade and medieval display in Swords town park in 2013. At that point the events manager dismissed him. He did not know this gentleman before this meeting and accepts that this gentleman did not know him.

He told the events manager that in the interests of the community spirit, He would waive any claim on infringement of intellectual/creative property if he were to agree to give me six complimentary tickets for that evenings Octoberfest. He said “No way, leave me alone I’m trying to run an event here, I’m too busy to deal with this now.’ This was despite him standing alone not talking to anyone not looking very busy when he approached him. The complainant subsequently obtained a freedom of Information request that provided information on who received complimentary tickets to the event.

He believes he was discriminated against in not receiving complimentary tickets like the other service providers who received them. He considers himself a service provider because he provided a community service by having a float in the Swords St. Patricks day parade and a Medieval display in the town park afterwards. He spent approximately 2000 Euros from his personal savings. At that time he was unemployed. He feels that his kindness was repaid by a refusal to provide him with a handful of complimentary 5 euro tickets to the event in Swords Castle.

He believes this was discriminatory treatment on the ground of Religion because of his religious belief that gay marriage is wrong and gay perverts engaging in buggery in broad daylight in view of children on Donabate Beach Co. Dublin is wrong. He stated that the events manager may have known about his religious beliefs because when he ran in the local elections and the issues in relation to the gay lifestyle, gay marriage were part of his campaign. He stated that the Government is a pro-gay lifestyle entity and the respondent is a Government established entity which holds the same views. He stated that their actions in the past only demonstrate their approval of the gay lifestyle in that they held a flag raising ceremony for those individuals who died in the Orlando nightclub shooting. It was a gay nightclub and those who died were all members of the gay community. He requested that there be a similar ceremony to celebrate “Pope Benedict’s 65 years anniversary since his priests beatification” or for “the slaughter of the Roman Catholic priest in France by Islamic extremists.” His request was refused. His view is that the same service is not being provided to him as to those in the LGBT because the respondent is pro the gay lifestyle.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

No Appearance.

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, 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.

3. —(1) For the purposes of this Act, discrimination shall be taken to occur where—

(a)on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as “the discriminatory grounds”) which exists at present or previously existed but no longer exists or may exist in the future, or which is imputed to the person concerned, a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated,

2( e) that one has a different religious belief from the other, or that one has a religious belief and the other has not (the “religion ground”),

The complainant’s specific complaint is that the respondent’s events manager discriminated against him in that he failed to give him complimentary tickets for an event being held in his local community because of his religious beliefs. He stated that is was evident that the respondent held a different religious belief from him due to the respondent being a Government entity and the Governments view on gay marriage before, during and following the referendum. He was strongly of the view that he was treated less favourably than those who did get tickets based on his religious beliefs.

He was unable to state whether or not the events manager would have been aware of this religious beliefs at the time of the refusal. He stated that he assumed that he would because of his election campaign but could put it no further than that.

I note from the freedom of information request that the complimentary tickets were given to organisations like the Civil Defence and Fire Brigade. The fact that differentiates those who got complimentary tickets and the complainant is that those who got tickets provide a community service on a permanent (daily) basis. The complainant contributed once and that was at the St. Patrick’s Day parade.

I am satisfied that the respondent’s selection process in relation to the allocation of tickets was fair and in compliance with the equality legislation.

The complainant had failed to establish a prima facia case of discrimination on the grounds of his religion. The complainant’s case fails.

Dated:   28.10.’16.