ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00002776
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Claimant | Respondent |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00003773-001 | 10/04/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 13/09/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Tierney
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 [and/or Section 39 of the and/or 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).
Background:
The Claimant is claiming that he was discriminated against on the grounds that he is in receipt of rent supplement and race. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Claimant was seeking to rent accommodation. On 12 February 2016 the Respondent advertised on several websites an accommodation to rent. When he contacted the Respondent to view the property he was queried about his back ground nationality and livelihood. When he mentioned that he was on social welfare and in receipt of rent supplement. He was told at6 the end of the call ‘please be advised that we do not accept people on rent allowance for this accommodation.’ On double checking the advertisement it stated ‘No rent allowance or students’. He sent an ES 1 form to the Respondent. In a letter dated 7 March the Respondent admitted that they were instructed by the owner of property not to accept any person on rent allowance. This, the Claimant stated established a prima facie case of discrimination. Also the failure of the Respondent to respond to the ES 1 form and the screening process supports this. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent denied that he discriminated against the Claimant and that 50% of the renters they deal with are on social welfare. They further stated that have a special arrangement with the local County Council to cater for them. The Respondent advised the Hearing that at3.10 pm on 11 May 2016 the Claimant contacted them by phone and demanded €1,500.00 saying we can ‘do this the hard way or the easy’. The implication being that if he received the money he would withdraw the claim. Witness G gave evidence the property was only advertised by them on one website, other sites took the advertisement and copied it. Also that they made an appointment for the Claimant to view the property but he never turned up. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
[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.]
I have considered the submissions made by both parties. The Claimant denied that he sought a payment to withdraw his claim. This presents a conflict of evidence. However, given the demeanour of the Claimant when he issued threats of further litigation against the Respondent in the course of the Hearing, persuades me that the Respondent evidence is more reliable. I therefore accept that the Claimant made the claim for gain rather than protection. I do not find the claim well founded and it fails. |
Dated: 23/04/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Tierney
Key Words:
Social Welfare recipient - discrimination |