Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Mary Byrne

Galway Golf Club

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Mary Byrne

Galway Golf Club

Representatives

In Person

Purdy Fitzgerald Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00011300-001

12/05/2017

The complainant herein is a keen golfer and wished to play at the respondent’s course on Easter Sunday 16th of April 2017. She was refused entry on the gender ground as a ‘men only’ open -competition (open to members and non-members) was scheduled for that day. She complained to the respondent and received partial but not full satisfaction. The complainant is not a member of the respondent club. The complaint was received by the WRC on the 12th of May 2017. The parties made written and oral submission to the hearing.

The complainant submits that on Tuesday the 11th of April 2017 she telephoned the respondent club to book into its Sunday open competition on Easter Sunday the 16th inst. She was informed that because she was a woman that she couldn’t play as Sunday’s are ‘men only’ days. She said that this was contrary to the Equal Status Act. She was then informed that it was permissible as Tuesdays were ‘women only’ days. Verification is available on the respondent’s website. She informed the club and received a reply on the 4th of May. She was assured that in future ‘open days will be open to both men and women’. On receipt of this complaint from the WRC the respondent amended its website at the beginning of June opening all open competitions to both sexes other than the competitions which were to take place on the 30th of July and 9th of September 2017.

The respondent submits that it acted expeditiously on receipt of the complaint to the extent that the ladies committee met on the 26th of April 2017, the men’s committee met on the 3rd of May and the club council met on the same day (the first available opportunity in all cases to meet). The general manager wrote to the complainant on the 5th of May confirming that arising from those meetings ‘all such competitions would be open to both women and men in the future. Recompense was offered by way of complementary green fees and a meal for two. All club members were notified of the change through the internal email system on the 12th of May, the 19th of May, the 26th of May and the 2nd of June. The respondent while not accepting the complaint has dealt with it expeditiously and fairly. In its legal submission the respondent questions the complainant’s locus standi referring to s. 7 of the Act. The complainant had declared herself satisfied with the respondent’s response to the allegation (per her statement of events in her complaint form) and goes on to suggest that it was the failure to publicise that response on the golf-net website over which the respondent has very little control as it is an external website. Visitors to the club can’t book facilities through that site. Her complaint is therefore concerning the failure to update the golf-net website and does not therefore meet the requirement set out at s. 21 (2) (a) (ii) of the Act. Without prejudice to the earlier legal submission and in the alternative the only complaint open to the complainant is one of indirect discrimination. The complainant submits that the same can be justified objectively as provided. The need to promote the game of golf is met through balancing the competing factors among members including juniors of both sexes who may be limited in the times during which they can play, seniors who may be restricted on the basis, of family, caring and work responsibilities. Accordingly, the club has developed constitutional and operational supervisory committees to balance the various competing needs and devolved responsibility to the Ladies and Men’s clubs to organise club competitions. Each group has a say in arriving at an overall agreement that meets the playing needs of all, recognising that all individual needs and demands can’t possibly be met. The April 16th agreement/measure was necessary to achieving cohesion and harmony among club members. Therefore, the measure was objectively justified, appropriate and necessary to achieve a legitimate aim of the respondent which was to maintain harmony and cohesion among club members.

I am satisfied that the complainant has established a prima facie case of discrimination as required by s. 38 (A) of the Act and that the burden of proof is thereby shifted to the respondent to rebut the complaint.

The complainant is not a member of the club and therefore s. 5 of the Act applies                               (1) - “a person shall not discriminate in disposing of goods to the public generally or a section of the public or in providing a service, whether the disposal or provision is for consideration or otherwise and whether the service provided can be availed of only by a section of the public”                                

The respondent has relied upon an objective justification defence as provided at s. 5                         (2) subsection (1) does not apply in respect of: ………. “(f)differences in the treatment of persons on the gender, age or disability ground or on the basis of nationality or national origin in relation to the provision or organisation of a sporting facility or sporting event to the extent that the differences are reasonably necessary having regard to the nature of the facility or event and are relevant to the purpose of the facility or event”  

I am satisfied that the respondent has objectively justified its decision to run gender specific “open competitions” and accordingly must find against the complainant.

The complaint is not well founded.