ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007635
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Customer | Airline |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00010228-001 | 12/03/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/09/2017
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:
The Complainant has alleged that he was discriminated upon on grounds of family status and age by having to pay to reserve seats in order to sit with his two children. He is seeking compensation. |
Preliminary Point - Use of Stenographer
The Complainant objected to the stenographer on the basis that this was a private hearing and the stenographer was not a company representative.
Commentary
The Adjudication Officer advised the hearing that the Solicitors representing the Respondent wrote to the WRC to advise that they would be using the service of a stenographer.
The Adjudication Officer advised the Administration of the WRC and instructed them to confirm that the use of a stenographer is the Respondent’s own business for their use only. No transcript would be sought for the Adjudication Officer or the Complainant and would not be relied upon when determining the case.
Decision on preliminary point
The Adjudication Officer decided to allow the stenographer to remain on the basis as set out above that it was used solely by the Respondent for the purpose of their notetaking.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Family Status The Complainant stated that in order to sit with his two children who are under 12 years of age he had to pay for their seats. He could not sit with them for free. He decided upon another option and he paid to reserve all three seats in a better part of the ‘plane so that he could exit quicker when they landed. He stated that he was victimised under ‘family status’ as he had to pay to reserve seats for himself and his two children who were under 12 years of age in order to sit with them. He subsequently realised that the company policy required him to pay for his seat and he could sit with his two children at no cost to the children. Age He stated that his children were under 12 years of age. They were victimised by having to pay for their seats. Both claims of family status and age were interlinked. He is seeking the maximum compensation of €15,000.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Age
The Respondent’s representative stated that according to Sec 21(2) of this Act the children are not applicants in this claim so age cannot be adjudicated upon. |
Also age was not listed on the form ES.1, therefore this matter is not before this hearing.
Family Status
The Respondent stated that the Complainant made a decision to reserve all three seats in a better part of the ‘plane so as to facilitate a quick exit when he landed. He had a choice of paying a reduced fare for his seat and his two children could have sat with him at no extra cost.
He made a decision to suit his own needs. He opted to reserve three seats in a better part of the ‘plane to suit his particular needs. They relied upon Stokes v Christian Brothers High School Clonmel [2015] IESC 13, [S.C. No 184 of 2012] in support of their position.
He has not established a prima facie case of victimisation. Therefore this complaint fails.
Findings and Conclusions:
Age I note that the children were not applicants in this case. I note that age was not notified to the Respondent on the form ES 1. I find that I may not adjudicate upon this part of the claim. Family Status I note that the Complainant of his own free will decided to select and reserve three seats in a better part of the plane in order to be able to exit the plane quicker when it landed. I find that the company policy does not apply in this case as the Complainant deliberately chose not to avail of the policy and instead purchased three reserved seats. I find that he cannot now rely upon a theoretical debate to ground his claim. I refer to Stokes v Christian Brothers High School Clonmel [2015] IESC 13, [S.C. No 184 of 2012] referred to above in Sec 99 it stated, “In order for a particular individual to have standing to mount a claim, that individual must be affected by the rule in question”. In this case the Complainant freely chose to reserve three seats in a premium section of the plane so the company policy does not apply. I find that he has not established a prima facie case of discrimination. |
Decision:
Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act.
Age
I have decided that as the children were not applicants in this claim and it was not listed and advised to the Respondent on the form ES 1, I do not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on this matter.
Family Status
For the above stated reasons, I have decided that the Complainant has not established a prima facie case of discrimination so this complaint fails.
|
Dated: 9 November 2017
Key Words:
Discrimination on grounds of family status |