ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00004131

Complaint for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/03/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 21 of the Equal Status Act 2000 (as amended) an individual may seek redress in respect of any prohibited conduct that has been directed against him or her by referring a case to the Workplace Relations Commission. It is a condition precedent to bringing any such matter before the Workplace Relations Commission that the individual complainant shall have already notified the Respondent in writing of the nature of the allegation and the intention to seek such redress if not satisfied with the Respondent’s response. This Notice in writing shall be brought within two months of the said prohibited conduct or the last instance of same.

Pursuant to Section 25 of the Equal Status Act 2000 I have had the within matter referred to me by the Director General for the purpose of an investigation into claims of discrimination and I have heard where appropriate the interested parties and have considered any relevant documentation provided in advance of the hearing and in the course of the hearing.

Parties : A complainant -v- A Public Interest Watchdog

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

The Complainant has some concerns regarding the Gender Recognition Act of 1915. He attended for a consultation with the publically funded legal advice body where he was advised to contact the Respondent for the purpose of seeking advice in relation to the concerns he had with respect to the said legislation.

The Complainant wrote to the Respondent on or about the 12^th of February 2016 and set out what he perceived to be Constitutional and Human Rights issues which require the bringing of a Constitutional challenge in the Public Interest. In particular the Complainant sought some

“…help and advice from The Respondent in this civil matter of Public Interest.”

Per the letter of the 12^th February - as referred to.

The Respondent’s first letter of response was returned undelivered and the response therefore was not seen by the Complainant until he had already initiated his proceedings under the Equal Status Act by setting out the alleged discriminatory Act in the approved ES1 Form which is dated the 21^st of March 2016.

In receiving the complaint, the Respondent wrote back out to the Complainant on the 12^th of April, 2016 including a copy of the letter it had originally sought to send dated the 23^rd of February 2016. The Respondent by way of it’s reply simply states that this entity

“..is not the appropriate organisation to assist you to assuage your dating concerns”

The Complainant went on to lodge a workplace relations complaint form on the 3^rd of July 2016 stating that this response discriminates against him on the Grounds of his religious beliefs and that the issue raised is a

“….valid issue and one that is certainly of public interest and which would make it worthy of being accepted as an issue that advice and/or legal representation could be dispensed ..with regard to advancing a constitutional challenge to the Gender Recognition Act”

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

In advance of the hearing date, the Respondent entity communicated with the WRC to state that the provision of legal advice or assistance is not a service provided by the body. The WRC advised that this issue could be dealt with at the outset on the hearing day.

Decision:

I have carefully considered the evidence adduced by both the Complainant in person, and by the Solicitor acting for and on behalf of the Respondent. In the first instance, I must determine if the Respondent is a person or body which is providing a service (meaning a service or facility) of any nature which is available to the public generally (or a section of the public). Section 5 of the Equal Status Act of 2000 directs that a person or entity shall not discriminate in the provision of any such service.

The Respondent’s legal advisor described the Respondent as a body primarily involved in the lobbying of the Government and State to ensure the full implementation in Ireland of international Human Rights standards. The evidence is that the Respondent has limited financial funding as it is not state aided (albeit some monies come in at a European level) and is therefore not in the business of providing advice in relation to individual queries nor can it get involved in litigation for and on behalf of individuals. Put simply, the Respondent has asserted that this is a Service which it simply does not supply, whether to the Complainant or to or any other member of the public.

The Complainant invited me to consider the correctness of the advices he had received from the free legal services provider who had pointed the Complainant to the Respondent as the appropriate party to whom he should address his Complaint.

In addition, the Complainant has invited me to interpret the work of the Respondent body as necessarily including the dispensing of legal advice to individuals.

On balance I find I am not persuaded by the Complainant’s arguments, and cannot presume to extend the scope of the Respondent’s clear and acknowledged and recognised Public functions to include an obligation to provide legal advice and direction to any individual extend that applies to it for this sort of information.

Regarding the issue of having been directed to the Respondent in the first place, it seems likely that the free legal advice body misunderstood the nature and extent of the Respondent’s function though I have no evidence of the conversation had or the issues raised by the Complainant with that particular third party, non-party to the within matter.

I find therefore that this claim is misconceived and I accordingly dismiss this claim pursuant to Section 22 of the Equal Status Act 2000 as amended by the Workplace Relations Act of 2015.

Dated:   12^th June 2017