ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00013168
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Jason Copse | The Good Luck Restaurant Limited T/A Bombay Palace |
Representatives | John Lynch & Company Solicitors | Terence F Casey & Co |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00017336-001 | 08/02/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/07/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Ewa Sobanska
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000,following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
This complaint is closely associated with a complaint made by the Complainant’s fiancée against the same Respondent.
The other complaint is subject to report bearing reference ADJ 13169. The complaints were heard together on the 19th July 2018 at a single adjudication hearing.
Background:
The Complainant alleges that he was discriminated against on the grounds of race and family status in relation to access to a service. In this regard, he asserts that he was refused service at the Respondent’s premises.At the WRC hearing the Complainant made an application to anonymise this decision. The Respondent did not object to this request. Having considered the Complainant’s request I am not satisfied that the Complainant put forward compelling reasons to exercise my discretion to anonymise this decision. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submits that he entered the Respondent’s restaurant with his fiancée and their baby at approximately 4.30/5.00pm on 30th August 2017. There were no other customers present at the time. The Complainant submits that they were told by the manager that there was “a private function here tonight” and refused service. The Complainant submits that they immediately felt from the tone taken by the manager that they were being discriminated against and were highly embarrassed by the situation. However, they left the premises. Later that evening the Complainant’s fiancée, Ms A telephoned the restaurant at approximately 7.30pm and asked if there was a private function that night and was advised by the member of staff who answered that there was not. She then asked the member of staff to put the manager on the phone and eventually the manager came on. Ms A advised him as to who she was and confirmed that she now knew that there was no private function on that night. The manager was caught for words and eventually apologised for the discriminatory act. The Complainant submits that this is a clear act of discrimination for no apparent reason whatsoever and is in direct contravention of the Act. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent denies the allegations of discrimination. Furthermore, the Respondent submits that the WRC does not have jurisdiction to hear this claim. The Respondent submits that the restaurant which is the subject of this complaint holds a wine retailers on-licence. The fact that the alleged discrimination (which is utterly denied) arose at the point of entry of a licenced premises means that it falls within the jurisdiction of the District Court under Section 19(2) of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 2003. The Respondent relies on A Customer v An Off-Licence ADJ 00005652. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Section 19 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act states as follows: “Section 19(1) In this section- “Act of 2000” means the Equal Status Act 2000; “Authority” means the Equality Authority; “Court” means the District Court; “discrimination” means discrimination within the meaning of the Act of 2000, but does not include discrimination in relation to— (a) the provision of accommodation or any services or amenities related to accommodation, or (b) ceasing to provide accommodation or any such services or amenities; “prohibited conduct” means discrimination against, or sexual harassment or harassment of, or permitting the sexual harassment or harassment of a person in contravention of Part II (Discrimination and Related Activities) of the Act of 2000 on, or at the point of entry to, licensed premises.” (2) A person who claims that prohibited conduct has been directed against him or her on, or at the point of entry to, licensed premises may apply to the District Court for redress. Having considered the evidence adduced in the instant claim, I find that in accordance with Section 19 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 2003 I have no jurisdiction to investigate this claim. In that regard, the Respondent is covered by a wine retailers on-licence and falls under the jurisdiction of the District Court. In the circumstances, the within claim is inadmissible under the Equal Status Acts. |
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.
I find that I have no jurisdiction in relation to the Complainant’s claim of alleged discrimination as it is outside the scope of the Equal Status Acts. |
Dated: 9th August 2018.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Ewa Sobanska
Key Words:
Race-family status-discrimination- no jurisdiction- Intoxicating Liquor Act- licensed premises |