ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00003788

Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/12/2016

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 ADJ is to be read in conjunction with ADJ 3789

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

Summary of Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The Complainant has been a customer of the Respondent Bank since 1991. The Customer had Directorships and shareholdings in a number of Companies also with the Bank. The Complainant had given personal guarantees to the Bank in relation to the borrowings of these Companies.

In July 2015 one of these Companies, XXXX Ltd, was placed into Examinership by the Circuit Court.

Standard Banking procedures were then followed and the Complainant’s Bank Accounts were transferred to the Bank’s Recoveries Unit. The Accounts were not closed.

In October 2016 portions of the Bank’s Loan Book were sold to an outside Agency. The Bank then wrote to the Complainant informing him of their decision to cease providing banking facilities to him.

The actions of the Bank have at all times been in keeping with standard Banking practices and no question of the Race or Religious background of the Complainant was ever considered. The Complainant has been a customer of the Bank since 1991 and no issues of Race or Religion were ever raised. The Bank was completely unaware of the religious affiliation of the Complainant.

All issues, including the Bank Branch incidents can be traced directly to the changing financial status and risk profile of the Complainant and his associated Companies to which he had given personal guarantees. His complaints to the Bank were fully investigated and a copy of relevant correspondence was provided at the hearing. Extensive Oral evidence from Bank Officials and a comprehensive written submission were provided to the Adjudicator

The Complaints under the Equal Status Acts were denied absolutely.

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:

Under the terms of the Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2012 was the Complainant discriminated against on the grounds of Race and Religion?

Does Section 5 of the Act preclude an Adjudication Officer from issuing a finding on this case?

Legislation involved and requirements of legislation:

Equal Status Act, 2000 to 2012 - need to establish a “prima facie” case

Decision:

In the first instance

Section 5 (1) (d) of the Equal Status Act is quoted below

Disposal of goods and provision of services.

5

5. —(1) A person shall not discriminate in disposing of goods to the public generally or a section of the public or in providing a service, whether the disposal or provision is for consideration or otherwise and whether the service provided can be availed of only by a section of the public.

(2) Subject to subsections (4) and (4A), subsection (1) shall not apply in respect of—

(d) differences in the treatment of persons in relation to annuities, pensions, insurance policies or any other matters related to the assessment of risk other than on the gender ground or in any other circumstances to which the Gender Goods and Services Directive is relevant where the treatment—

(i) is effected by reference to—

(I) actuarial or statistical data obtained from a source on which it is reasonable to rely, or

(II) other relevant underwriting or commercial factors,

and

(ii) is reasonable having regard to the data or other relevant factors,

In the case in hand the complete situation was derived from the changing financial risk profile of the Complainant and his associated Companies for which he had given personal guarantees to the Bank.

I consider that Section 5 does apply to this case and would firstly dismiss the claim on this jurisdictional ground

In the second instance

Extensive oral and written evidence was provided by the Bank detailing all correspondence, e mails etc. with the Complainant in relation to his specific complaints. On questioning by the Adjudicator the relevant Training on Equality /Racial/Religious issues for Bank Staff had been provided by the Bank.

Good oral evidence was presented by Mr. AB of the Bank’s Complaint Handling Section and by Mr. AC, the Bank’s Relationship Manager who had dealt with the Complainant’s accounts.

This evidence, oral and written, was open to cross questioning by the Complainant at the hearing.

Having reviewed all this evidence and heard the Complainant’s oral evidence I could not find prima facie grounds to substantiate the claims of Racial or Religious discrimination. No where in any of the evidence was there any suggestion of race or religion. It was purely a financial matter.

Accordingly on this second factual ground I also dismiss the claims.

Dated 4^th May 2017