Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Mary Cawley

Hooley Records Limited

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00015429-001

18/10/2017

This dispute involves a claim by the complainant that she was discriminated against by the above-named respondent, contrary to section 3 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000-2015, on grounds of membership of the Traveller Community when she was not permitted to buy a ticket to attend a concert being performed by singer Mr. N which was held in a named hotel on 27th April 2017.   The complainant referred a complaint under the Equal Status Acts, 2000-2015 to the Workplace Relations Commission on the 18th of October 2017.

In accordance with his powers under section 75 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2015 and under the Equal Status Acts, 2000-2015, the Director delegated the case to me for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under III of the Equal Status Acts, 2000-2015.

As required by Section 25(1) and as part of my investigation, I proceeded to a Hearing of this complaint.   Given that this complaint is one of 35 similar complaints involving seven complainants and five respondents in relation to the same alleged incident of discrimination I proceeded to hold a case management hearing on the 21st of May 2018 in order to hear issues in dispute and to hear arguments in respect of whom the appropriate respondent/s may be in respect of these claims.  

It is submitted that

the complainant attended at a named Hotel (against whom a complaint has also been taken) with the purpose of attending a concert performed by the singer and performer Mr. N (against whom a complaint has also been taken),

the complainant once at the named Hotel sought to purchase a ticket for Mr. N’s concert but was refused, and was told that the event was for members only,

it is submitted that the complainant was not permitted to buy a ticket for Mr. N’s concert due to the fact that she is a member of the Traveller community.    

It is submitted that

The above-named respondent Hooley Records Limited is a complete stranger to the events complained of and is not the correct respondent to these claims,

The above-named respondent Hooley Records Limited had no involvement whatsoever in the delivery of a performance at the named hotel and had no involvement in the performance the subject matter of this complaint.

Preliminary Issue of Correct Respondent to the claim

It is submitted that the named respondent, Hooley Records Limited is not the correct respondent for the purpose of this claim and had no involvement whatsoever in the delivery of a performance at the named hotel and had no involvement in the performance the subject matter of this complaint.

The complainant and six other named complainants submitted complaints against five named respondents thus there are 35 similar complaints in relation to the same alleged incident of discrimination. Seven of these claims have been taken against Hooley Records Limited.

Three of the respondents involved in these claims, including Hooley Records Limited attended the case management hearing of the 21st of May 2018 and submitted that they are not the correct respondents for the purpose of these claims.

The above-named respondent Hooley Records Limited advised the hearing that it is a complete stranger to the events complained of and is not the correct respondent to these claims.

Background to complaint and allegation of discriminatory treatment

The complainants advised the hearing that they arrived at the named Hotel on the night of 27th of April 2017 where they attempted to buy tickets to attend a singing performance by singer/songwriter Mr. N.   The complainants told the hearing that they entered the hotel without incident. The complainants stated that they went upstairs to the area where tickets were being sold for admission to the concert and they approached two people who were seated at table selling tickets for the performance. The complainants could not say whether these people were employed by the named respondent.   The complainants advised the hearing that they sought to purchase tickets to attend Mr. N’s stage performance which was being held there on the night in question but stated that they were refused tickets by the ticket sellers at the table and were told that it was ‘members only’.   The complainants dispute this as they say they had phoned ahead to ask if tickets had to be booked in advance and were told they could pay at the door. The complainants submit that there was no mention of it being a members only event during this phone call and also that the advertising for the performance had not mentioned that it was a ‘members only’ event.

Three of the named respondents were represented by Mr. B at the hearing including the above-named respondent Hooley Records Limited.   It is submitted that Hooley Records Limited is a record label which is a stranger to these events and had nothing at all to do with the incident the subject of this complaint.   The respondent advised the hearing that the people selling the tickets were not employees or agents of theirs and that they had no knowledge as to who these people were employed by.

Mr. B, representative for three of the respondents including Hooley Records Limited raised a jurisdictional issue in respect of the claims being more appropriate to be dealt with under the Intoxicating Liquor Act as the claims concerned allegations in respect of acts committed at the point of entry to a licensed premises. The complainant’s representative refuted this assertion stating that the complainants were not refused access at the point of entry to the premises as they had already been on the premises and had consumed drinks on the premises before going upstairs to the concert venue and seeking to buy tickets to Mr. N ‘s performance at which point they were refused.  

I must make a decision on whether the above-named respondent Hooley Records Limited is the correct respondent to this claim. I am satisfied from the evidence adduced that Hooley Records Limited was not the person who refused to sell tickets to the complainants for Mr. N’s performance.   I am also satisfied from the evidence adduced that the persons who refused to allow the complainant to purchase a ticket for the concert performance were not agents or representatives of Hooley Records Limited.   I am also satisfied that the persons who refused to sell tickets to the complainant were not operating under instruction or direction from Hooley Records Limited.

Thus, I am satisfied from the totality of the evidence adduced that the above-named respondent is not the correct respondent to this claim and accordingly the complaint must fail.

I am satisfied from the totality of the evidence adduced that the above-named respondent is not the correct respondent to this claim and accordingly the complaint must fail.