ADJ-00006129

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00006129

Parties:

 Complaint

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 11/04/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Rosaleen Glackin

Location of Hearing: Lansdowne House, Dublin 4

Procedure:

In accordance with 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.

Background:

The Complainant lives in North County Dublin and is a reader of the Local Newspaper. The Complainant has a complaint in relation to the publication dated 17^th May 2016 and again on 24^th May 2016. The Complainant served Form ES.1 on the Respondent dated 9^th June 2016 alleging the Respondent was discriminating against him on the religion ground.

The Complainant lodged a complaint with the Workplace Relations Commission on 17^th November 2016 alleging the Respondent had discriminated against him in the provision of services on the sexual orientation ground.

Summary of Complainant’s Position.

The Complainant stated that he had sent several communications by both email and by registered post to the Respondent Company requesting the same free service be made available to him as had been provided to the LGBT community. The Complainant stated that the Respondent had provided a service through its newspaper seeking a canvas of all local politicians in relation to a proposal by Mr Aodhan O’Riordan (Senator) that the local politicians should consider whether a memorial to the LGBT community should be erected in the local cultural centre.

The Complainant is seeking that the Respondent should also provide him with the same service to establish if the local Policeman’s would support his proposal that a monument should be erected in the cultural centre to commemorate his life achievements so far which include standing up for his religious beliefs by campaigning against abortion and gay marriage.

The Complainant stated that the Respondent ignored his proposal and has effectively treated him less favourably than others are, have been or would be treated in similar circumstances because of the religious beliefs he holds

Summary of Respondent’s Position.

The Respondent stated that no service was provided to the LGBT Community either paid for or provided free of charge. The Respondent stated that the Complainant appeared to labour under the misapprehension that the Newspaper is a free Community Publication. It is a commercial journal and derives its income from advertisements placed on a commercial basis. The Publication is distributed on a free to reader basis. It does not provide a free service to those who wish to have items published. Editorial copy is sourced by the journalists and the editorial team are charged with ensuring balanced content which has the interests of readers and does not infringe the laws of liable or decency.

The Complainant in correspondence to the Newspaper sought that the publication undertake a canvas of the community and local Politicians on their views of the erection of a monument within the Cultural Quarter marking his life achievements. The Respondent stated that the Complainant’s request is motivated by copy published on 17^th and 24^th May 2016. The article of 17^th May 2016 took an elected representatives general proposal and asked the local decision makers, the Councillors, their view of placing a monument in the cultural centre to the achievements of the LGBT Community. Readers will also invited to express their views.

The Respondent stated that did not provide a service to the LGBT community. The Newspaper acted on a proposal by a local politician. The Respondent did not propose that a monument should be erected to the LGBT community, therefore they did not provide any service to the LGBT Community and Mr Aodhan O’Riordan is not a spokesperson for the LGBT Community.

Preliminary Issue Section 21 – Redress in respect of prohibited conduct.

1. A person who claims that prohibited conduct has been directed against him or her may, subject to this section, seek redress by referring the case to the Director

2. Before seeking redress under this section the complainant – (a) shall, within two months after the prohibited conduct is alleged to have occurred, or, where more than one incident of prohibited conduct is alleged to have occurred, within two months after the last such occurrence, notify the respondent in writing of – (i) the nature of the allegation (ii) the complainant’s intention, if not satisfied with the respondent’s response to the allegation, to seek redress by referring the case to the Director

Section 3(2) of the Act sets out the “discriminatory grounds” for the purposes of the Act. It sets out the 10 grounds on which a Complainant can allege discrimination has occurred. The Complainant served the Respondent with notice on 9^th June 2016 stating “I think that you have/may have treated me unlawfully by ……Discriminating against me contrary to the Equal Status Acts 2000-2015….I think you did so on the following grounds” The Complainant ticked the “religion” ground.

However the complaint submitted to the WRC dated 17^th November 2016 states as follows “I have been discriminated against by a person, organisation/company who provides goods, services or facilities” The Complainant ticks the box “I say that I have been discriminated against by reason of my sexual orientation”.

I find that the Complainant did not comply with Section 21 of the Act in that he did not serve the correct notice on the Respondent in relation to the ground on which he was alleging he had been discriminated against stating in the notice to the Respondent he had been discriminated against on the religion ground while his complaint to the WRC states he had been discriminated against on the sexual orientation ground.

Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act. I declare I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint as the notice served on the Respondent under Section 21 of the Act cites he was discriminated on the grounds of his religion while the complainant to the WRC cites he was discriminated on the sexual orientation ground.

Dated: 04 July 2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Rosaleen Glackin

Key Words: