ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00005248

Complaint for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 7th December 2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seán Reilly

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and Section 25 of the Equal Status Act 2000 and 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:

The Complainant confirmed that he did not have a complaint against the Respondent under the Employment Equality Act 1998 and accordingly the complaint under that Act was withdrawn,       (ADJ-00005244 and CA-00007389 refers)

Background:  

The Complainant had submitted a complaint under the Equal Status Act that he had been discriminated against by the Respondent on the grounds of his membership of the Travelling Community. 

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant said he, along with his (named) brother entered the Leisure Centre on 24^th April 2016, as he was going to collect his 3 month membership.

The Complainant along with his brother approached the Reception Desk and they spoke to a named staff member about the membership he was there to collect.   The staff member gave the Complainant and his brother a contract with a list of rules they wanted him to abide by and to sign for.  

The Complainant and his brother asked for a few minutes to read through the rules and contract they were being asked to sign and the staff member told them they could.

The Complainant said that at first the rules of the contract were fine, until they came across a rule that stated “only three persons can enter the premises at any given time”.   The Complainant said he was surprised and dismayed at this (as it did not make sense).  

The Complainant and his brother returned to the Reception Desk and asked the staff member what this rule was all about and if it was policy of the Respondent.   He said the Staff Member replied “No it’s not policy, it’s just for you lot”.   The Complainant said he then asked her what do you mean by you lot and she replied “You travellers”.

The Complainant said he was absolutely shocked with this response and he refused to sign the form as it was a clear case of discrimination.

The Complainant submitted 5 documents in support of his case:

The first of these is entitled Membership Application Form and the above condition is not included in it.

The second of these is entitled Conditions of Memership signed and date by the Complainant and on behalf of the Respondent and the above condition is not mentioned in it either.

The third of these is a another document also entitled Membership Application Form,which the Complainant states was used after the incident on 24^th April 2016 and contains a section seeking details of any 3 friends or family members.

The fourth of these in another document entitled Conditions of Membership.

The fifth of these is the document the Complainant refers and objects to and states was only for members of the Travelling community.   At the fourth bullet point it states: “No groups of more than 3 coming into the Centre together at any one time.”

The Complainant said that both he and his brother were humiliated and degraded by what happened to them and he submitted that it clearly and plainly constituted discrimination based on his membership of the Travelling Community.

The Complainant’s brother gave evidence that fully supported the Complainant’s case and evidence.

The Complainant sought that his complaint be upheld and that he be awarded redress in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

Summary of Respondent’s Position:  

The Respondent was not present or represented and they sent no submissions.

Findings and 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.

The Respondent was not present or represented at the Hearing and they sent no submissions, accordingly I only have the submissions and evidence of the Complainant to rely upon in this matter.

Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant I find and declare that the complaint is well founded and it is upheld.

In addition I note that apart from the fact that the Complainant said he and his brother had been told that this rule only applied to them as members of the Travelling Community and that the documentation presented to me tends to support that position, I note that such a rule is not practicable or workable as it would, if effected, exclude families, e.g, Mother, Father and two children, 4 brothers and/or sisters, groups of friends and work colleagues of 4 or more and school groups etc, etc.   I note that such groups are very very common users of leisure centres and would be the backbone of leisure centre users and it is impossible to accept that such groups could or would be barred from using a leisure centre.

Based on the foregoing I find and declare that the complaint under Section 25 of the Act in relation to discrimination in the provision of goods and services on the grounds of Membership of the Travelling Community is well found and it is upheld.  

In accordance with the provisions of Section 27 of the Equal Status Act I require the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation in the sum of €7,000.00c within 6 weeks of the date of this decision; I further require the Respondent to remove the discriminating section of the Rules that states “No groups of more than 3 coming into the centre together at any one time” also within 6 weeks of the date of this decision.

I so decide.

Seán Reilly, Adjudication Officer 

Dated: 01 February 2017