ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00002256
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-00003057-001 | 06/03/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 02/12/2016
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
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).
Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:
The Complainant was a student of an NUI College studying law. The Respondent is an administrator of the Student Grant Scheme for 2015. On the complaint form, the Complainant had named an employee of the Respondent, however at the hearing he agreed for this name to be corrected to the legal name of the Respondent.
The Complainant was repeating the third year of the degree course.
The Complainant’s case was that his student grant application was refused on a discriminatory basis. The refusal letter from the Respondent set out the reasons he was refused the grant was because
“Repeat period of study / Equivalent period of study”.
The letter set out
“It has been determined that you are ineligible to receive funding for one of the following reasons:
As per article 15 (6) of the Student Grant Scheme 2015 a grant may not be paid in respect of a repeat period of study on the same course or
As per article 15 (7) of the Student Grant Scheme 2015 a grant may not be paid in respect of a repeat period of study on a different course.
You must complete an equivalent period of study before being eligible to apply for a student grant. There are certain provisions which may entitle you to grant support notwithstanding the above, which are set out in articles 15 (7), 16, 17 and 18 of the Student Grant Scheme 2015. “
The Complainant’s case is that he checked the provisions of Section 15 (7) of the Student Grant Scheme 2015. This referred to a grant may not be paid in respect of a repeat period of study on a different course. The Complainant’s case is that this had nothing to do with him. He was never on a different course.
During the hearing, we reviewed Section 15 (6) of the Student Grant Scheme 2015. It set out that subject to paragraph 15(8) a grant may not be paid in respect of a repeat period of study on the same course.
Section 15 (8) stated an awarding authority shall have discretion to waive the provisions of paragraphs (6) and (7) in exceptional circumstances in line with guidelines drawn up by the Minister.
The Complainants case is that he sought the guidelines drawn up by the Minister and these were never provided to him.
The Complainant’s case was that he was discriminated by the Respondent on the 12th of February 2016 by reason of religion, age and race in relation to the provision of education.
The Complainant’s case was that it was clear to him from the written decision of the 12th February 2016 that he was not on a different course and as such, the Irish Statute was falsified by the Respondent in an arrogant manner and the reason for this being was that he was black in education, Christian in education and a mature student in education.
The Complainant’s case was that the complaint form required him to identify if he was an independent mature student. It also asked him to identify the country where he was born and his nationality and his Garda National Information Bureau reference number and identify the basis on which he was allowed to remain in the jurisdiction.
At the hearing the Claimant admitted that he didn’t have any proof that the decision to refuse him the student grant was linked to his religion, his race or his age. He said that he was looking for answers as to why he was refused and he was going to continue his search.
He confirmed that he did not appeal the decision, but that he had telephoned a few times looking for the guidelines.
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:
The Respondent’s case was that the Complainant made an application for a student grant in 2012 which was renewed in 2013 and renewed in 2014. In 2015 he made a new application because he was repeating year three of his course. His application was that he was a mature student dependent on his wife.
The Respondent received confirmation that he was repeating year three of his degree course.
The Respondent made a decision based on Section 15 (6) of the Act that the Complainant was not eligible to claim the student grant scheme because he was repeating year three of the same course.
The letter sent of the 12th of February 2016 to the Respondent was a standard template for two situations. It pointed out that its website under the tab called Resources contained the Guidelines which explained exceptional circumstances and what discretion the Respondent had to waive the provisions of Section 15 (6) of the Student Grant Scheme 2015.
Even though the Complainant did not appeal the decision on his 2015 claim form in a section headed “additional notes”, he had written that it was due to financial difficulty that he only managed to attend nine lectures throughout his first semester. The Complainant also set out that his results had been withheld due to unpaid fees.
The Respondent’s submission was that these reasons for repeating the year did not fit into the guidelines for exceptional circumstances to waive Section 15 (6) of the Student Grant Scheme 2015.
The Respondent’s submission was that the Complainant was treated the same way as the other 105,000 applications that were made for a student grant in 2015. If the Complainant had been progressing to year four of his course, he would have received a grant for year four.
The Respondents case is that there was no mention of discrimination in the telephone calls made by the Complainant, which were recorded and transcripts submitted at the hearing.
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.
I have reviewed the evidence of both parties, both on the complaint form and provided at the hearing. As the decision to decline the Complainant’s application for a student grant in 2015 was on the basis that
he was repeating a period of study on the same course and not progressing to the next year of the course and
he did not meet the definition of exceptional circumstances to qualify for repeat funding as set out in the guidelines for this Student Grant Scheme 2015
I find that the decision not to grant the Complainant a student grant for 2015 was not related to any of the protected grounds claimed by the Complainant namely religion, race or age.
The Complainant’s case fails.
Dated: 15th May 2017