Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000

CA-00017182-001

25/Oct/2017

The complainant is alleging that he was discriminated against by the respondent on the grounds of disability by association with his father in relation to access to a service.

1.1The complainant submits that his father is entitled to free travel on the respondent services on the grounds of disability and is the holder of a “FT + C” Public Services Card. This card entitles his father to free travel and also provides for free travel for a person over 16 years of age accompanying him. The complainant submits that on 27 April 2017 at 18.15, he together with father boarded the No. 126 bus at Naas, Co. Kildare intending to travel to Dublin. The complainant submits that the driver disputed the complainant’s entitlement for free travel and insisted that his father and himself would not be allowed travel on the bus if they were not willing to pay a fare for the complainant’s travel. The complainant submits that that the driver stated that a companion must be over 18 to travel for free and was adamant in this regard. The complainant states that he was aware that the companion must be 16 years or older and that he complied with this requirement. The complainant submits that he and his father were required to disembark the bus by the driver and in that regard, he submits that he was discriminated against on grounds of disability by association in the respondent’s refusal to allow him access the bus service.

On a preliminary issue, the respondent argues that the complaint is out of time as the complaint form was received on 25 October 2017. However, it submits that the date of the alleged discrimination was 20 April 2017. The respondent also submits that the complainant and his father   had advice from a legal representative and no reasons were established for the delay in submitting the claim.

In relation to the substantive issue, the respondent denies the allegation of discrimination. The respondent states that the companion accompanying the pass holder must be 16 years or older. The driver gave testimony on the day of hearing and submitted that he has 12 years experience in driving with Bus companies. He states that he is well aware of the policies in relation to holders of a “FT + C” Public Services Card. The driver states that he said to the complainant’s father that he would have to pay a child fare for his companion. He submits that he stated to the complainant’s father that the person accompanying him must be 16 years of age. The driver states that he is within his right to make a judgement as to whether a person is of the required age and request ID on that basis if in doubt. The driver also stated that the complainant did not offer to show the driver his identification i.e. his driver’s permit at the material time contrary to his testimony at hearing.

The driver submits that the complainant’s father got highly animated and abusive towards him. The driver stated that the complainant’s father also shouted racial abuse at another passenger on the bus who was trying to assist saying “you go back to your own country”.   The passenger who alleges that he was intimidated and subjected to verbal abuse gave evidence at the hearing and stated that the complainant’s father became very abusive towards the driver and he gave his name and address to the bus driver at the next stop so as to act as a witness in the event of any further actions on behalf of the complainant. This witness also gave a written statement in this regard which was submitted at the hearing.    

The respondent maintains that its drivers are entitled to look for identification in situations where they are in doubt over the companion’s age. But ultimately the driver states that the complainant and his father were requested to disembark the bus on the basis of intimidating and threatening behaviour by the complainant’s father. The respondent refutes the allegation of discrimination and contends there is no basis for such a claim.

The matter for decision is whether the respondent discriminated against the complainant on grounds of disability by association. I must first deal with the preliminary issue raised by the respondent in relation to the complaint being submitted 5 days outside the six month time limit. Having carefully examined this issue, I find that reasonable cause for the delay was not presented and I am cognisant that the complainant had the benefit of legal advice. Consequently, I find that I have no jurisdiction as the complaint is out of time.

I find that I have no jurisdiction in relation to the within complaint as it is out of time.

Equal status Acts – discrimination – disability by association– time limits