ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00004107
Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:
|
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 |
CA-00004510-001 | 17/05/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 10/11/2016
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Considerable correspondence was exchanged with the Complainant post the hearing regarding a clarification of the Definition of a “Service” as set out in Section 2 of the Act. The Complainant’s views were carefully considered by the Adjudication Officer.
Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:
By not allowing me a right of reply to what I believe to be a flawed inaccurate article that appeared in the Respondent Newspaper on XX November 2015 - which was offensive to my Religious Beliefs (article was entitled "Report reveals disturbing facts on suicide statistics") - I was treated less favourably than others – LGBT advocacy groups and those perceived as belonging to the "Chattering Classes" or anyone else that has, is, or would be treated) - in similar circumstances because of my Religious Beliefs - by not being given an opportunity to write an article or have a letter of reply on the topic in question that would be published in all Respondent Newspapers editions as the article that I wished to make a response to appeared in. I will include in accompanying documents to be sent by registered post - copies of the newspaper article in question and my email to the then News Editor Ms. XX in which I had requested a right of reply and my intended reply to the article that I respectfully requested be published as a right of reply - which Ms XX requested me to do so (send an email to her about the matter) upon my having made contact with her by telephone on 23rd November 2015. Since I fulfilled that request there has been no further response from Respondent Newspapers. |
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:
Did not attend – correspondence sent to the Company Registered Address. No submissions received.
Decision:
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.
Issues for Decision:
Is the complaint as detailed (right of reply to a newspaper article) suitable for investigation under the Equal Status Act 2000
Legislation involved and requirements of legislation:
Equal Status Act 2000 – preliminary establishment of a prima facie case
Decision:
Section 2 of the Equal Status Act 2000 is quoted below.
- —(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
“service” means a service or facility of any nature which is available to the public generally or a section of the public, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, includes—
(a) access to and the use of any place,
(b) facilities for—
(i) banking, insurance, grants, loans, credit or financing,
(ii) entertainment, recreation or refreshment,
(iii) cultural activities, or
(iv) transport or travel,
On careful reflection and consideration of the supplementary correspondence received from the Complainant on this point I cannot see how the granting or refusal of the Right of Reply to a Newspaper article falls within the scope of a service under the Equal Status Act 2000.
Accordingly I dismiss this claim.
I noted the Complainants’ assertion that he was entitled to a decision by Default under Section 26 of the Act due to the non appearance of the Respondent. However as the primary finding, set out above, dismisses the claim Section 26 is not then relevant.
Dated: 05/04/2017