ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00002800

Complaints for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 13/01/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.

Background to Complainants’ Submission:

Ms A, mother of the family and Mr B, father of the family were in attendance. Minor C, Minor D and Minor E, three children of the family, were not in attendance and were represented by their parents. It was stated that: Minor C while over the age of 18 at the time of the incident is deemed medically still a minor; Minor D was a minor when the incident occurred and Minor E is still a minor. The claims in relation to race were withdrawn. The complainants were represented by Ms F, a friend of the family.

On Thursday the 15th of October 2015 members of the family (Ms A, Mr B, Minor C, Minor D and Minor E) sought accommodation as they were homeless and contacted their friend Ms F as the family had been experiencing difficulties all day with securing accommodation at other venues. Ms F was on the train and tried to book accommodation for the family by using one of the online booking search engine websites and secured accommodation for the family at approximately 7:30 p.m. which was secured with her own credit card. Once the booking was confirmed by email, Ms F advised the family that a reservation for one double and one treble room had been secured. The two females were to take the double room and the three males were to take the treble room.

The family drove to the hotel and the mother Ms A went to the front desk and gave the name to the man at reception Mr G and advised him that there was a reservation for a double and a treble room. She said Mr G looked at the screen then looked at her and said there was no booking. She asked could he check it again and he repeated again that there was no booking. Ms A felt that by the way he looked her that he did not want her to stay at the hotel because she is a traveller. She said that he made no effort to check out if he was mistaken with the booking and made no attempt to check availability. She returned to her car and told the rest of the family what had occurred. As she was not able to contact Ms F on the phone, and as she needed to secure accommodation for the night, her children had to sleep with relatives and Ms A and Mr B had to sleep in their car.

On Saturday 18^th October 2015, Ms F called to the Hotel and asked to speak to the Manager on duty to find out why her friends had been turned away.   Mr H, a manager of the Hotel, met her and said he would look into the matter and get back to Ms F but she did not hear back from him. Ms F contacted the respondent on 30^th October by letter requesting again that he contact her advising why her friends had been turned away. Ms F also contacted the booking website regarding the refusal of accommodation as she received by email a ‘ No-Show message’ from them. She received what she regarded as a “very kind and concerned letter” from the website apologizing for what had happened.   On November 5th an e-mail message came from the Manager, Mr H, , apologising and stating that the person who had been at the Reception Desk (Mr G) was unfamiliar with the computer system as it was not his normal duty to deal with reception and that on the evening in question he was covering for someone who was sick. On 14^th December 2016, Ms F handed in a letter with an accompanying ES1 form to the Hotel but received no response to this.

Evidence was also given by the father of the family Mr B that on a previous occasion he had sought accommodation at the same hotel and had been refused by a person that, based on the description his wife gave him, he thought was the person (Mr G). While he was not certain what date this had happened he thought it might have been in the previous three weeks of the incident of 15^th October 2015. Ms F confirmed that she was aware that other members of the travelling community had stayed at the hotel and that there had never been any issues that she was aware of for them at the hotel.

Following the hearing the representative Ms F sent three separate additional pieces of correspondence (copies of which were also sent by the WRC to the respondent providing the respondent time in which to respond but no response was received from them):

The first of the correspondence received was dated 24^th January 2017 (a four page handwritten letter with accompanying documentation) which amongst its content confirmed that Child D was a minor at the time of the incident, and that Child C can be deemed medically a minor.

The second piece of correspondence was dated 25^th January 2017 (a thirteen page handwritten letter with accompanying documentation) which amongst its content provided clarification regarding the manager’s phone call to Ms F in December 2015, queried why the manager Mr H did not contact the members of the family regarding their complaint, asked how the Manager Mr H had stated that he had not received the form ES 1 notification from her which was hand-delivered and suggested that Mr H had indeed received it which was why he phoned her when he did. It was also detailed in that letter some reference to alleged discrimination in the area by other hotels against members of the travelling community. Finally there appeared to be a request in this letter that Ms F wished to submit a claim against the hotel.

Clarification was sought from her regarding this letter and a third piece of correspondence was received from Ms F on 7^th February 2017 (a four page typed letter) where amongst other things it appeared that Ms F was confirming that she had omitted to send a referral for herself for a claim by her association with members of the travelling community and that further information would be posted forthwith.   No further information was received and I will deal with this issue at the end of my decision.

Background to the Respondent’s Submission:

Mr H gave evidence on behalf of the Hotel and advised that Mr G who had dealt with the family was no longer an employee at the hotel. He advised that Mr G was only working at the hotel a few weeks when this incident occurred, albeit he had previously worked at a sister hotel and that while there was availability at the hotel, Mr G was not aware that bookings from the web site came in on a separate system and he would not have known to check a different system. He advised that Mr G does not normally work at reception but that the receptionist had gone home sick that night and he had to do her work. He denied that Mr G refused accommodation on the basis of the family being a member of the traveller community but stated that he refused it on the basis that he did not know there was a booking for them. He also confirmed that there was availability that night and that no available rooms were offered to the family and he could not explain why the available room were not offered.

When asked what would normally happen if there was mistake in a booking he advised that complimentary stay might be offered. He confirmed that this had not been offered on this occasion but stated that he was awaiting Ms F to phone him back.

He did not recall receiving a letter or ES1 form from Ms F on 15^th December 2016 but accepted that it had been handed in to reception.. He could not explain why a letter which was handed in to reception for his attention had not been received by him. The respondent confirmed that other members of the travelling community frequent the hotel with some staying for periods of up to a month and that he did not have any issues with them staying at the hotel.

Complainant’s Submission (CA-00003821-001):

As per the details of the background to the complainant’s submission referred to above, Ms A, mother of the family, claimed that she was discriminated against in relation to her membership of the travelling community. It was claimed that she was told that the accommodation booked for her on line, namely a double room for her and her daughter and a treble room for her husband and her two sons, did not exist and that she was treated differently than somebody not a member of the travelling community would have been treated.

Respondent’s Submission (CA-00003821-001):

As per the details of the background to the respondent’s submission referred to above, the respondent denied that the complainant was discriminated against by the respondent.

Decision (CA-00003821-001):

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.

Discrimination is set down in section 3 (1) of the Acts as:

“For the purposes of this Act discrimination shall be taken to occur—

1. where a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as the ‘discriminatory grounds’) which—(I) exists,(ii) existed but no longer exists, (iii) may exist in the future, or (iv) is imputed to the person concerned,

First, I must assess whether the complainant have succeeded in establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. In order to do so the complainant must satisfy three criteria in relation to the complaint. The complainant must (1) establish that the complainant is covered by a discriminatory ground (in this case the Traveller Community ground); (2) it must be established that the specific treatment alleged by the complainant actually occurred and (3) there must be evidence that the treatment received by the complainant was less favourable than the treatment someone who was not a member of the discriminatory ground would have received in similar circumstances.

In this case it is not a fact in dispute that the complainant is a member of the Traveller Community thus satisfying the first of the criteria outlined above. It is clear from the evidence that accommodation was booked for the complainant and the complainant was refused access to same. This is to satisfy the second of the three criteria set out above. Regarding the third of the criteria, i.e. whether the treatment was less favourable than someone who was not a member of the Traveller community would have received in similar circumstances; I must consider the evidence in its entirety. In making my decision, I have taken into account all of the evidence, written and oral, made to me by the parties to the case.

The respondent has confirmed that there were rooms available at the hotel on the night in question. The respondent has also confirmed that the complainants were turned away. He states however, that they were turned away because the manager on duty at the time was not familiar enough with the booking system.

While this may be the case, it was confirmed that the manager on duty did not make any effort to check why the booking could not be found. Furthermore, no attempt was made to rectify the matter by checking in the absence of a reservation, if any accommodation was available. While it was the evidence of Mr H that he did make a phone call to Ms F and was awaiting her to phone him back, I believe that at the very least and especially following receipt of Form ES1, that he should have made a further attempt to follow up in relation to the complaint and make some efforts to try and repair the damage, through for example a complimentary stay at the hotel, which by his own admission would be the norm.

While it is unfortunate that Mr G was no longer available to give evidence I am satisfied that a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment has been made and I find that the complainant was refused accommodation on the basis of her membership of the travelling community contrary to the Equal Status Act 2000.  I order that the Respondent pay to the Complainant, Ms A, the sum of €1,000.00 for the effect of that discrimination.

Complainant’s Submission (CA-00003823-001):

As per the details of the background to the complainant’s submission referred to above, Mr B, the father of the family claimed that he was discriminated against in relation to his membership of the travelling community. It was claimed that his wife was told that the accommodation booked for himself and his family online, namely a treble room for him and his two sons and a double room for his wife and his daughter, did not exist and that he was treated less favourably than somebody not a member of the travelling community would have been treated.

Respondent’s Submission (CA-00003823-001):

As per the details of the background to the respondent’s submission referred to above, the respondent denied that the complainant was discriminated against by the respondent.

Decision (CA-00003823-001):

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.

Discrimination is set down in section 3 of the Acts as:

“For the purposes of this Act discrimination shall be taken to occur—

(a)   where a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as the ‘discriminatory grounds’) which—(I) exists,(ii) existed but no longer exists, (iii) may exist in the future, or (iv) is imputed to the person concerned,

First, I must assess whether the complainant have succeeded in establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. In order to do so the complainant must satisfy three criteria in relation to the complaint. The complainant must (1) establish that the complainant is covered by a discriminatory ground (in this case the Traveller Community ground); (2) it must be established that the specific treatment alleged by the complainant actually occurred and (3) there must be evidence that the treatment received by the complainant was less favourable than the treatment someone who was not a member of the discriminatory ground would have received in similar circumstances.

In this case it is not a fact in dispute that the complainant is a member of the Traveller Community thus satisfying the first of the criteria outlined above. It is clear from the evidence that accommodation was booked for the complainant and the complainant was refused access to same. This is to satisfy the second of the three criteria set out above. Regarding the third of the criteria, i.e. whether the treatment was less favourable than someone who was not a member of the Traveller community would have received in similar circumstances; I must consider the evidence in its entirety. In making my decision, I have taken into account all of the evidence, written and oral, made to me by the parties to the case.

The respondent has confirmed that there were rooms available at the hotel on the night in question. The respondent has also confirmed that the complainants were turned away. He states however, that they were turned away because the manager on duty at the time was not familiar enough with the booking system.

While this may be the case, it was confirmed that the manager on duty did not make any effort to check why the booking could not be found. Furthermore, no attempt was made to rectify the matter by checking in the absence of a reservation, if any accommodation was available. While it was the evidence of Mr H that he did make a phone call to Ms F and was awaiting her to phone him back, I believe that at the very least and especially following receipt of Form ES1, that he should have made a further attempt to follow up in relation to the complaint and make some efforts to try and repair the damage, through for example a complimentary stay at the hotel, which by his own admission would be the norm.

While it is unfortunate that Mr G was no longer available to give evidence I am satisfied that a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment has been made and I find that the complainant was refused accommodation on the basis of his membership of the travelling community contrary to the Equal Status Act 2000. I order that the Respondent pay to the Complainant, Mr B, the sum of €1,000.00 for the effect of that discrimination.

Complainant’s Submission (CA-00003824-001):

As per the details of the background to the complainant’s submission referred to above, Minor C, a daughter of the family, claimed through her parents, that she was discriminated against in relation to her membership of the travelling community. Medical evidence to support that Minor C can be regarded as a minor. It was claimed that her mother was told that the accommodation booked online for her, namely a double room for her and her mother and a treble room for her father and her brothers, did not exist and that she was treated less favourably than somebody not a member of the travelling community would have been treated.

Respondent’s Submission (CA-00003824-001):

As per the details of the background to the respondent’s submission referred to above, the respondent denied that they discriminated against the complainant.

Decision (CA-00003824-001):

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.

Discrimination is set down in section 3 of the Acts as:

“For the purposes of this Act discrimination shall be taken to occur—

1. where a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as the ‘discriminatory grounds’) which—(I) exists,(ii) existed but no longer exists, (iii) may exist in the future, or (iv) is imputed to the person concerned,

    

   First, I must assess whether the complainant have succeeded in establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. In order to do so the complainant must satisfy three criteria in relation to the complaint. The complainant must (1) establish that the complainant is covered by a discriminatory ground (in this case the Traveller Community ground); (2) it must be established that the specific treatment alleged by the complainant actually occurred and (3) there must be evidence that the treatment received by the complainant was less favourable than the treatment someone who was not a member of the discriminatory ground would have received in similar circumstances.

    

   In this case it is not a fact in dispute that the complainant is a member of the Traveller Community thus satisfying the first of the criteria outlined above. It is clear from the evidence that accommodation was booked for the complainant and the complainant was refused access to same. This is to satisfy the second of the three criteria set out above. Regarding the third of the criteria, i.e. whether the treatment was less favourable than someone who was not a member of the Traveller community would have received in similar circumstances; I must consider the evidence in its entirety. In making my decision, I have taken into account all of the evidence, written and oral, made to me by the parties to the case.

    

   The respondent has confirmed that there were rooms available at the hotel on the night in question. The respondent has also confirmed that the complainants were turned away. He states however, that they were turned away because the manager on duty at the time was not familiar enough with the booking system.

    

   While this may be the case, it was confirmed that the manager on duty did not make any effort to check why the booking could not be found. Furthermore, no attempt was made to rectify the matter by checking in the absence of a reservation, if any accommodation was available. While it was the evidence of Mr H that he did make a phone call to Ms F and was awaiting her to phone him back, I believe that at the very least and especially following receipt of Form ES1, that he should have made a further attempt to follow up in relation to the complaint and make some efforts to try and repair the damage, through for example a complimentary stay at the hotel, which by his own admission would be the norm.

    

   While it is unfortunate that Mr G was no longer available to give evidence I am satisfied that a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment has been made and I find that the complainant was refused accommodation on the basis of her membership of the travelling community contrary to the Equal Status Act 2000.  I order that the Respondent pay to the Complainant, Minor C, the sum of €1,000.00 for the effect of that discrimination.

    

Complainant’s Submission (CA-00003826-001):

As per the details of the background to the complainant’s submission referred to above, Minor D (a minor at the time of the incident), a son the family, claimed through his parents, that he was discriminated against in relation to his membership of the travelling community. It was claimed that his mother was told that the accommodation booked for him online, namely a treble room for him and his father and brother and a double room for his mother and his sister, did not exist and that he was treated less favourably than somebody not a member of the travelling community would have been treated.

Respondent’s Submission (CA-00003826-001):

As per the details of the background to the respondent’s submission referred to above, the respondent denied that they discriminated against the complainant.

Decision (CA-00003826-001):

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.

Discrimination is set down in section 3 of the Acts as:

“For the purposes of this Act discrimination shall be taken to occur—

1. where a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as the ‘discriminatory grounds’) which—(I) exists,(ii) existed but no longer exists, (iii) may exist in the future, or (iv) is imputed to the person concerned,

First, I must assess whether the complainant have succeeded in establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. In order to do so the complainant must satisfy three criteria in relation to the complaint. The complainant must (1) establish that the complainant is covered by a discriminatory ground (in this case the Traveller Community ground); (2) it must be established that the specific treatment alleged by the complainant actually occurred and (3) there must be evidence that the treatment received by the complainant was less favourable than the treatment someone who was not a member of the discriminatory ground would have received in similar circumstances.

In this case it is not a fact in dispute that the complainant is a member of the Traveller Community thus satisfying the first of the criteria outlined above. It is clear from the evidence that accommodation was booked for the complainant and the complainant was refused access to same. This is to satisfy the second of the three criteria set out above. Regarding the third of the criteria, i.e. whether the treatment was less favourable than someone who was not a member of the Traveller community would have received in similar circumstances; I must consider the evidence in its entirety. In making my decision, I have taken into account all of the evidence, written and oral, made to me by the parties to the case.

The respondent has confirmed that there were rooms available at the hotel on the night in question. The respondent has also confirmed that the complainants were turned away. He states however, that they were turned away because the manager on duty at the time was not familiar enough with the booking system.

While this may be the case, it was confirmed that the manager on duty did not make any effort to check why the booking could not be found. Furthermore, no attempt was made to rectify the matter by checking in the absence of a reservation, if any accommodation was available. While it was the evidence of Mr H that he did make a phone call to Ms F and was awaiting her to phone him back, I believe that at the very least and especially following receipt of Form ES1, that he should have made a further attempt to follow up in relation to the complaint and make some efforts to try and repair the damage, through for example a complimentary stay at the hotel, which by his own admission would be the norm.

While it is unfortunate that Mr G was no longer available to give evidence I am satisfied that a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment has been made and I find that the complainant was refused accommodation on the basis of his membership of the travelling community contrary to the Equal Status Act 2000. I order that the Respondent pay to the Complainant, Minor D, the sum of €1,000.00 for the effect of that discrimination.

Complainant’s Submission (CA-00003827-001):

As per the details of the background to the complainant’s submission referred to above, Minor D (a minor at the time of the incident), a son of the family, claimed through his parents, that he was discriminated against in relation to his membership of the travelling community. It was claimed that his mother was told that the accommodation booked for him online, namely a treble room for him and his father and brother and a double room for his mother and his sister, did not exist and that he was treated less favourably than somebody not a member of the travelling community would have been treated.

Respondent’s Submission (CA-00003827-001):

The respondent denied that they discriminated against the complainant.

Decision (CA-00003827-001):

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.

Discrimination is set down in section 3 of the Acts as:

“For the purposes of this Act discrimination shall be taken to occur—

1. where a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as the ‘discriminatory grounds’) which—(I) exists,(ii) existed but no longer exists, (iii) may exist in the future, or (iv) is imputed to the person concerned,

First, I must assess whether the complainant have succeeded in establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. In order to do so the complainant must satisfy three criteria in relation to the complaint. The complainant must (1) establish that the complainant is covered by a discriminatory ground (in this case the Traveller Community ground); (2) it must be established that the specific treatment alleged by the complainant actually occurred and (3) there must be evidence that the treatment received by the complainant was less favourable than the treatment someone who was not a member of the discriminatory ground would have received in similar circumstances.

In this case it is not a fact in dispute that the complainant is a member of the Traveller Community thus satisfying the first of the criteria outlined above. It is clear from the evidence that accommodation was booked for the complainant and the complainant was refused access to same. This is to satisfy the second of the three criteria set out above. Regarding the third of the criteria, i.e. whether the treatment was less favourable than someone who was not a member of the Traveller community would have received in similar circumstances; I must consider the evidence in its entirety. In making my decision, I have taken into account all of the evidence, written and oral, made to me by the parties to the case.

The respondent has confirmed that there were rooms available at the hotel on the night in question. The respondent has also confirmed that the complainants were turned away. He states however, that they were turned away because the manager on duty at the time was not familiar enough with the booking system.

While this may be the case, it was confirmed that the manager on duty did not make any effort to check why the booking could not be found. Furthermore, no attempt was made to rectify the matter by checking in the absence of a reservation, if any accommodation was available. While it was the evidence of Mr H that he did make a phone call to Ms F and was awaiting her to phone him back, I believe that at the very least and especially following receipt of Form ES1, that he should have made a further attempt to follow up in relation to the complaint and make some efforts to try and repair the damage, through for example a complimentary stay at the hotel, which by his own admission would be the norm.

While it is unfortunate that Mr G was no longer available to give evidence I am satisfied that a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment has been made and I find that the complainant was refused accommodation on the basis of his membership of the travelling community contrary to the Equal Status Act 2000.  I order that the Respondent pay to the Complainant, Minor E, the sum of €1,000.00 for the effect of that discrimination.

Decision re Additional Claim from Ms F:

With regards to the late submission by Ms F that she wished her claim to be included on the basis of her association with members of the travelling community, I am satisfied that she had an opportunity to make such a claim at the time but failed to do so.

Section (6) of the act references that “Subject to subsection (7), a claim for redress in respect of prohibited conduct may not be referred under this section after the end of the period of 6 months from the date of the occurrence of the prohibited conduct to which the case relates or, as the case may be, the date of its most recent occurrence t fall.

(7) If, on application by the complainant, the Director is satisfied that exceptional circumstances prevented the complainant's case from being referred within the time limit specified in subsection (6)— (a) the Director may direct that, in relation to that case, subsection (6) shall have effect as if for the reference to a period of 6 months there were substituted a reference to such period not exceeding 12 months as is specified in the direction b) where such a direction is given, this Part shall have effect accordingly

I do not accept the claim that the exceptional circumstances are that Ms F “mistakenly omitted to refer” her own case and that she did not know how to fill in the form which she states in her letter dated 27^th January 2017, as it clear that she was able to fill in the form in relation to those that she was representing. Her request to be included, therefore, is denied on the basis that Ms F has failed to meet the required time limit in relation to the submission of her complaints and, consequently I have no jurisdiction to hear the substantive element of her complaints.

Dated: 2^nd May 2016