ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00004874
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-00003951-001 | 19/04/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 15/11/2016
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). This case is closely linked to ADJ 4878 and both cases were heard together.
Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:
Complainant A is a member of the Travelling Community. On Thursday 22nd October 2015, A entered the Respondent’s hotel premises to purchase a meal and drinks. Upon entering the premises, both A and B took seats at the bar counter and asked for menus. It was at this juncture that D, a barman employed by the Respondent said to A and B, "no, you're not being served". A enquired why and D told him that "you know the reason why". D then went on to comment that "you have some nerve coming back here after what you done in the past”. A then asked D what had happened in the past and was told, "you know, you were down in that corner about two years ago, you made a complete nuisance and a waster of yourself. You were throwing sugar around. You were there for at least an hour and a half and we were trying to get you to leave”. A repeatedly stated to D that he had not been to the Respondent’s premises for several years and that not only were his accusations untrue but also impossible. A gave the Respondent’s employee the opportunity to reverse his decision and serve both him and his son but this was refused. This whole incident took place on a busy Thursday evening at a time when the Respondent’s hotel had numerous customers and took place in full view of and within earshot of the great majority of customers of the Respondent’s establishment. At no stage during this incident or any time prior thereto did A or C conduct themselves in any way that justified the Respondent’s treatment of them. During the incident, the Respondent’s employee D also admitted that he was aware that A and B are members of the Travelling Community. |
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:
The claim is not well founded under the Equal Status Acts as Section 19 (11) of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 2003 precludes an Adjudicator from hearing a claim of this nature under the Equal Status Acts.
Decision:
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.
Issues for Decision:
Has an Adjudicator jurisdiction to hear this claim?
Legislation involved and requirements of legislation:
Equal Status Act, 2000 and Intoxicating Liquor Act, 2003
Decision:
Section 19 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 2003 amended the Equal Status Acts of 2000 to remove the jurisdiction of the Equality Authority in cases of this nature.
Accordingly I have no jurisdiction to hear this case.
The claim (CA-00003951-001 ) under the Equal Status Acts is accordingly dismissed.
Dated: 24 March 2017