ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
CORRECTION ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO SECTION 29(2) of the Equal Status Act 2000.
This Order corrects the original Decision issued on 11/09/2018 and should be read in conjunction with that Decision.
The following clarification has been added to the Decision:
The findings in this decision are specific to the facts and circumstances of the case and do not constitute a binding interpretation of the now-repealed EU Regulation 98/2013 on the Marketing and Use of Explosives Precursors transposed into Irish law by SI 611/2014.
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00011671
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Customer | A Pharmacy |
Representatives |
| E.J. Walsh B.L. instructed by Miley & Miley Solicitors |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00015479-001 | 27/10/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 01/06/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marian Duffy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000, and 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.
Background:
The complainant is from Algerian and is a Muslim. He is claiming discriminatory treatment on the race and religion grounds because of the way he was treated when he sought to purchase a product in the respondent’s pharmacy. He submits that his treatment is contrary to the provisions of the Equal Status Acts 2000. The respondent case is that it was a requirement under an enactment to question the complainant about what he was using the product for before selling it to him. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submitted that he and his wife were regular customers of the respondent’s pharmacy and some of the staff knew his wife very well. His wife decided to switch over to natural cleaning products and she asked him to purchase 2 bottles of vinegar, a bottle of distilled witch hazel, a bottle of hydrogen peroxide, a bottle of rubbing alcohol and bicarbonate of soda. He went to the respondent’s pharmacy to purchase the products. The pharmacy assistant who helped him to locate the surgical spirits and the witch hazel enquired why he was purchasing hydrogen peroxide. He felt he was put on the spot and he told he was using it for first aid and he was using it for other things such as cleaning. The assistant then went to speak to another member of staff. The complainant said he felt uncomfortable and embarrassed about being questioned about an over the counter product that he used in his house. He was then told that he needed a prescription to buy it, it was the pharmacy’s policy. He was then approached by another member of staff and questioned again about why he was purchasing hydrogen peroxide. She told him it was not meant for the purposes for which he was buying the product. She then told him it was not in stock, but she could order it for him. He went to another pharmacy and purchased without any questions. The complainant said that on the same day he asked his Irish friend to go to the respondent’s pharmacy to purchase hydrogen peroxide and he was informed that it was not in stock, but they would order it for him. The complainant said that the Irish person was not asked any questions about why he needed the product. The complainant submits that he was discriminated against because of his Algerian nationality and his religion and treated less favourably than an Irish national was treated in similar circumstances. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
As a preliminary issue the respondent submitted that the complainant did not refer his complaint within the statutory 6-month time frame for referring a complaint. The respondent denied that the complainant was subject to discriminatory treatment in relation to purchasing hydrogen peroxide. The actions taken by the staff of the respondent on the day in question were taken in order to comply with company procedures and legislation in relation to the control of explosive precursors. The respondent is obliged to comply with EU Regulation No 98/2013 on the marketing and use of explosive precursors. This Regulation was enacted into Irish Law by the European Union (Marketing and Use of Explosive Precursors) Regulations 2014 (S.I. 611 of 2014) (the “Regulations”). The Regulations place a legal obligation on retailers to refuse and report suspicious transactions of certain substances that can be used to do harm.
One of the products the complainant attempted to buy was a product containing hydrogen peroxide at less than 12% volume w/w and this is one of the substances listed in Annex 1 of EU Regulation No 98/2013, which is the reason the complainant was questioned about the intended use of the product.
The respondent submitted that it is obliged to comply with the Regulations and staff have been provided with robust training. The training provided in respect of the Regulations on explosive precursors is based on advice published by the Department of Justice and Equality. The decision to refuse to sell the product to the complainant by the pharmacy assistant was based on the following reasons: The combination of products that the complainant attempted to purchase were unusual and included a product containing a substance named in Annex 1 of the EU Regulation 98/2013; When questioned as to the purpose he wished to purchase a product containing hydrogen peroxide he appeared unclear, initially stating it was for first aid and then saying it was for household cleaning; He appeared unfamiliar with the regular use of hydrogen peroxide and he appeared nervous and uneasy by the routine questioning put to him by the respondent’s employee in accordance with the training. For these reasons, the pharmacy assistant considered the transaction suspicious and refused the sale. In accordance with the procedures the complainant’s request was referred to the pharmacist who made the decision to order in the hydrogen peroxide for the complainant as it is no longer a stock item. The pharmacy assistant said that she assisted the complainant in locating the products in the pharmacy. She has been trained in relation to the sale of restricted products and the questions to ask customers seeking to buy such products. She said that hydrogen peroxide is in a lot of products including nail varnish and if a customer seeks to bulk buy these products it is necessary to ask questions about the use of the product. She said that the complainant was seeking to purchase hydrogen peroxide and other products including witch hazel and surgical spirits and it seemed to her to be a suspicious transaction and she asked him what he was using it for. She said that she is required to ask questions if a customer is unclear or unfamiliar with its intended use. The complainant told her he was making a cat repellent. She denied that she told the complainant he needed a prescription to purchase the product. She then spoke to the pharmacist who in turn spoke to the complainant. She said that the complainant’s religion or race had nothing to do with her decision to query the complainant. She said that she had to comply with the regulations otherwise she could be disciplined. She said after questioning the complainant the pharmacist decided it was not a suspicious transaction and she agreed to order it in as it is not a stock item any longer. The respondent’s legal representative submitted that there is an obligation under the Regulations to ask questions about the intended use of hydrogen peroxide regardless of its strength. In addition, there is an obligation on Pharmacists under the Pharmacy Act to ask the customer the intended use of a product to ensure it is safe to sell for the intended use. It was submitted that the Regulations applied and Section 14 of the Equal Status Act provides a complete defence to the claim. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The first matter I must decide is whether the complaint was referred within the statutory time limit of 6 months. The alleged discriminatory incident took place on the 28th April 2017 and the respondent submits that the complaint was received by the WRC on the 31st of October 2017 and outside the 6-month period. Having checked the matter in the WRC, I am satisfied that the complaint was received by the WRC on the 27th October 2017 and is within time limit. I note also that in all the correspondence from the WRC to the complainant and the respondent it was stated that the complaint was received in the WRC on the 27th October 2017 I find therefore I have jurisdiction in the matter. The next matter I must consider is whether Section 14 of the Equal Status Act applies to the complaint. Section 14 provides: “14.—(1) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting— (a) the taking of any action that is required by or under— (i) any enactment or order of a court, (ii) any act done or measure adopted by the European Union, by the European Communities or institutions thereof or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the European Communities, or (iii) any convention or other instrument imposing an international obligation on the State,”
The marketing and use of certain chemical substances known as explosive precursors are governed by EU Regulation No. 98/2013 and this was transposed into Irish Law by S.I. No. 611 of 2014, European Union (Marketing and Use of Explosives Precursors) Regulations 2014. Hydrogen Peroxide at concentration levels above 12% w/w is listed in Annex 1 of the Regulations as a restricted explosive precursor. The hydrogen peroxide sold in the respondent’s chemist has concentration levels of 6%. It was submitted by the respondent that the Regulations apply to suspicious transactions regardless of the concentration levels Article 9 of the EU Regulations imposes a duty on Economic Operators to monitor the sales of the substances listed in Annex 1 and 11 and to report any suspicious transactions. I note that S.I. No 611 of 2014 states as follows: “Suspicious Transactions” “12. (1) An economic operator may refuse any transaction which he or she has reasonable grounds for believing is a suspicious transaction.”
Regulation 12(3) of S.I. No 611 provides:
And Annex 1 of EU Regulation No 98/213 “Substances which shall not be made available to member of the general public on their own, or in mixtures or substances including them, except if the concentration is equal to or lower than the limit values set out below” : Hydrogen peroxide limit value 12% w/w. The explanatory note attached to S.I. No. 611of 2014 states the: “The Regulations restrict the access by the general public (as defined within the EU Regulation) to certain chemical substances, of certain concentrations,” Having examined the legislation it is clear that the Regulations do not apply to products which contain hydrogen peroxide in concentration levels at or below 12%. The hydrogen peroxide which the respondent sells has concentration levels of 6%. I note that a guidance document issued by the Office of Government Inspector of Explosives GD 1/2014, on the EU Re Regulation and the Statutory Instrument No. 611 of 2014 states that the requirements under the Regulation and the S. I. applies to all concentrations of the listed precursors. However, this document is not an enactment. I am not satisfied that the action taken by the respondent in relation to the sale of hydrogen peroxide in concentration levels below 12% to the complainant was a requirement under an enactment and therefore it is not covered by Section 14. The next matter I must consider is whether the complainant was discriminated against contrary to the Equal Status Act in relation to purchasing goods from the respondent’s pharmacy when he was asked questions about its intended use. Section 3 of the Act provides inter alia as follows: (1) For the purposes of this Act discrimination shall be taken to occur—(a) where a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) or, if appropriate, subsection (3B),] (in this Act referred to as the ‘discriminatory grounds’) which— (i) exists, (ii) existed but no longer exists, (iii) may exist in the future, or ……………. (2) As between any two persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are: ………….. (e) that one has a different religious belief from the other, or that one has a religious belief and the other has not (the “religion ground”), (h) that they are of different race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins (the “ground of race”), ………………………..” “5.—(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.” Section 38 provides that it is for the complainant to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment. The complainant believes that he was questioned about the reasons he was buying hydrogen peroxide because of his nationality and his religion. He said he was seen as a suspicious customer by the respondent because of the colour of his skin and his beard. In evidence he said that an Irish person was not asked any question when he sought to purchase hydrogen peroxide later that day. The respondent submitted that the transaction was a suspicious transaction, as the complainant was purchasing a combination of products including hydrogen peroxide. He was questioned about the use of the hydrogen peroxide so as to comply with company procedures and the legislation in relation to the control of explosive precursors. As I have stated above, hydrogen peroxide in concentration levels at or below 12% is excluded from the ambit of the EU and Irish Regulations and concentration levels of 6% was sold by the pharmacy and none of the other products the complainant was seeking to purchase were covered by the legislation. Therefore, it was not necessary to ask the questions as, it could not have been a suspicious transaction as defined in the Regulations. Furthermore, the complainant was buying only one bottle of hydrogen peroxide. I note the complainant purchased hydrogen peroxide in another pharmacy without being subjected to any questioning. Likewise, I note that an Irish person was not subjected to any questions when he sought to purchase hydrogen peroxide from the respondent later that day. If the respondent’s policy in relation to the sale of hydrogen peroxide applied to all customers equally, the Irish customer would have been asked questions about its intended use also. I am satisfied that the complainant has established that he was treated less favourably than an Irish person was treated in comparable situation. I find therefore that the complainant has established a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment on the race ground. I find that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case on the religion ground. He failed to establish that he was treated less favourably than a person with a different religious belief or a person with no religious beliefs was treated in similar circumstances. |
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 the complainant was not discriminated against on the religion ground contrary to the Equal Status Acts. I find that the complainant was discriminated against on the race ground contrary to the Equal Status Acts. Under section 27(1) of that Act redress may be ordered where a finding is in favour of the complainant. Section 27(1) provides that: "the types of redress for which a decision of the Director under section 25 may provide are either or both of the following as may be appropriate in the circumstances: (a) an order for compensation for the effects of the discrimination; or (b) an order that a person or persons specified in the order take a course of action which is so specified."
I order the respondent to pay to the complainant the sum of €700 (seven hundred euro) to compensate him for the distress caused to him. |
Dated: September 11th 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marian Duffy
Key Words:
Equal Status Acts, Time Limits, S. 14 requirement under an enactment, less favourable treatment on race and religion ground. |
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00011671
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Customer | A Pharmacy |
Representatives |
| E.J. Walsh B.L. instructed by Miley & Miley Solicitors |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00015479-001 | 27/10/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 01/06/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marian Duffy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000, and 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.
Background:
The complainant is from Algerian and is a Muslim. He is claiming discriminatory treatment on the race and religion grounds because of the way he was treated when he sought to purchase a product in the respondent’s pharmacy. He submits that his treatment is contrary to the provisions of the Equal Status Acts 2000. The respondent case is that it was a requirement under an enactment to question the complainant about what he was using the product for before selling it to him. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submitted that he and his wife were regular customers of the respondent’s pharmacy and some of the staff knew his wife very well. His wife decided to switch over to natural cleaning products and she asked him to purchase 2 bottles of vinegar, a bottle of distilled witch hazel, a bottle of hydrogen peroxide, a bottle of rubbing alcohol and bicarbonate of soda. He went to the respondent’s pharmacy to purchase the products. The pharmacy assistant who helped him to locate the surgical spirits and the witch hazel enquired why he was purchasing hydrogen peroxide. He felt he was put on the spot and he told he was using it for first aid and he was using it for other things such as cleaning. The assistant then went to speak to another member of staff. The complainant said he felt uncomfortable and embarrassed about being questioned about an over the counter product that he used in his house. He was then told that he needed a prescription to buy it, it was the pharmacy’s policy. He was then approached by another member of staff and questioned again about why he was purchasing hydrogen peroxide. She told him it was not meant for the purposes for which he was buying the product. She then told him it was not in stock but she could order it for him. He went to another pharmacy and purchased without any questions. The complainant said that on the same day he asked his Irish friend to go to the respondent’s pharmacy to purchase hydrogen peroxide and he was informed that it was not in stock but they would order it for him. The complainant said that the Irish person was not asked any questions about why he needed the product. The complainant submits that he was discriminated against because of his Algerian nationality and his religion and treated less favourably than an Irish national was treated in similar circumstances. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
As a preliminary issue the respondent submitted that the complainant did not refer his complaint within the statutory 6-month time frame for referring a complaint. The respondent denied that the complainant was subject to discriminatory treatment in relation to purchasing hydrogen peroxide. The actions taken by the staff of the respondent on the day in question were taken in order to comply with company procedures and legislation in relation to the control of explosive precursors. The respondent is obliged to comply with EU Regulation No 98/2013 on the marketing and use of explosive precursors. This Regulation was enacted into Irish Law by the European Union (Marketing and Use of Explosive Precursors) Regulations 2014 (S.I. 611 of 2014) (the “Regulations”). The Regulations place a legal obligation on retailers to refuse and report suspicious transactions of certain substances that can be used to do harm.
One of the products the complainant attempted to buy was a product containing hydrogen peroxide at less than 12% volume w/w and this is one of the substances listed in Annex 1 of EU Regulation No 98/2013, which is the reason the complainant was questioned about the intended use of the product. The respondent submitted that it is obliged to comply with the Regulations and staff have been provided with robust training. The training provided in respect of the Regulations on explosive precursors is based on advice published by the Department of Justice and Equality. The decision to refuse to sell the product to the complainant by the pharmacy assistant was based on the following reasons: The combination of products that the complainant attempted to purchase were unusual and included a product containing a substance named in Annex 1 of the EU Regulation 98/2013; When questioned as to the purpose he wished to purchase a product containing hydrogen peroxide he appeared unclear, initially stating it was for first aid and then saying it was for household cleaning; He appeared unfamiliar with the regular use of hydrogen peroxide and he appeared nervous and uneasy by the routine questioning put to him by the respondent’s employee in accordance with the training. For these reasons, the pharmacy assistant considered the transaction suspicious and refused the sale. In accordance with the procedures the complainant’s request was referred to the pharmacist who made the decision to order in the hydrogen peroxide for the complainant as it is no longer a stock item. The pharmacy assistant said that she assisted the complainant in locating the products in the pharmacy. She has been trained in relation to the sale of restricted products and the questions to ask customers seeking to buy such products. She said that hydrogen peroxide is in a lot of products including nail varnish and if a customer seeks to bulk buy these products it is necessary to ask questions about the use of the product. She said that the complainant was seeking to purchase hydrogen peroxide and other products including witch hazel and surgical spirits and it seemed to her to be a suspicious transaction and she asked him what he was using it for. She said that she is required to ask questions if a customer is unclear or unfamiliar with its intended use. The complainant told her he was making a cat repellent. She denied that she told the complainant he needed a prescription to purchase the product. She then spoke to the pharmacist who in turn spoke to the complainant. She said that the complainant’s religion or race had nothing to do with her decision to query the complainant. She said that she had to comply with the regulations otherwise she could be disciplined. She said after questioning the complainant the pharmacist decided it was not a suspicious transaction and she agreed to order it in as it is not a stock item any longer. The respondent’s legal representative submitted that there is an obligation under the Regulations to ask questions about the intended use of hydrogen peroxide regardless of its strength. In addition, there is an obligation on Pharmacists under the Pharmacy Act to ask the customer the intended use of a product to ensure it is safe to sell for the intended use. It was submitted that the Regulations applied and Section 14 of the Equal Status Act provides a complete defence to the claim. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The first matter I must decide is whether the complaint was referred within the statutory time limit of 6 months. The alleged discriminatory incident took place on the 28th April 2017 and the respondent submits that the complaint was received by the WRC on the 31st of October 2017 and outside the 6-month period. Having checked the matter in the WRC, I am satisfied that the complaint was received by the WRC on the 27th October 2017 and is within time limit. I note also that in all the correspondence from the WRC to the complainant and the respondent it was stated that the complaint was received in the WRC on the 27th October 2017 I find therefore I have jurisdiction in the matter. The next matter I must consider is whether Section 14 of the Equal Status Act applies to the complaint. Section 14 provides: “14.—(1) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting— (a) the taking of any action that is required by or under— (i) any enactment or order of a court, (ii) any act done or measure adopted by the European Union, by the European Communities or institutions thereof or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the European Communities, or (iii) any convention or other instrument imposing an international obligation on the State,” The marketing and use of certain chemical substances known as explosive precursors are governed by EU Regulation No. 98/2013 and this was transposed into Irish Law by S.I. No. 611 of 2014, European Union (Marketing and Use of Explosives Precursors) Regulations 2014. Hydrogen Peroxide at concentration levels above 12% w/w is listed in Annex 1 of the Regulations as a restricted explosive precursor. The hydrogen peroxide sold in the respondent’s chemist has concentration levels of 6%. It was submitted by the respondent that the Regulations apply to suspicious transactions regardless of the concentration levels Article 9 of the EU Regulations imposes a duty on Economic Operators to monitor the sales of the substances listed in Annex 1 and 11 and to report any suspicious transactions. I note that S.I. No 611 of 2014 states as follows: “Suspicious Transactions” “12. (1) An economic operator may refuse any transaction which he or she has reasonable grounds for believing is a suspicious transaction.”
Regulation 12(3) of S.I. No 611 provides:
And Annex 1 of EU Regulation No 98/213 “Substances which shall not be made available to member of the general public on their own, or in mixtures or substances including them, except if the concentration is equal to or lower than the limit values set out below” : Hydrogen peroxide limit value 12% w/w. The explanatory note attached to S.I. No. 611of 2014 states the: “The Regulations restrict the access by the general public (as defined within the EU Regulation) to certain chemical substances, of certain concentrations,” Having examined the legislation it is clear that the Regulations do not apply to products which contain hydrogen peroxide in concentration levels at or below 12%. The hydrogen peroxide which the respondent sells has concentration levels of 6%. I note that a guidance document issued by the Office of Government Inspector of Explosives GD 1/2014, on the EU Re Regulation and the Statutory Instrument No. 611 of 2014 states that the requirements under the Regulation and the S. I. applies to all concentrations of the listed precursors. However, this document is not an enactment. I am not satisfied that the action taken by the respondent in relation to the sale of hydrogen peroxide in concentration levels below 12% to the complainant was a requirement under an enactment and therefore it is not covered by Section 14. The next matter I must consider is whether the complainant was discriminated against contrary to the Equal Status Act in relation to purchasing goods from the respondent’s pharmacy when he was asked questions about its intended use. Section 3 of the Act provides inter alia as follows: (1) For the purposes of this Act discrimination shall be taken to occur—(a) where a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) or, if appropriate, subsection (3B),] (in this Act referred to as the ‘discriminatory grounds’) which— (i) exists, (ii) existed but no longer exists, (iii) may exist in the future, or ……………. (2) As between any two persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are: ………….. (e) that one has a different religious belief from the other, or that one has a religious belief and the other has not (the “religion ground”), (h) that they are of different race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins (the “ground of race”), ………………………..” “5.—(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.” Section 38 provides that it is for the complainant to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment. The complainant believes that he was questioned about the reasons he was buying hydrogen peroxide because of his nationality and his religion. He said he was seen as a suspicious customer by the respondent because of the colour of his skin and his beard. In evidence he said that an Irish person was not asked any question when he sought to purchase hydrogen peroxide later that day. The respondent submitted that the transaction was a suspicious transaction, as the complainant was purchasing a combination of products including hydrogen peroxide. He was questioned about the use of the hydrogen peroxide so as to comply with company procedures and the legislation in relation to the control of explosive precursors. As I have stated above, hydrogen peroxide in concentration levels at or below 12% is excluded from the ambit of the EU and Irish Regulations and concentration levels of 6% was sold by the pharmacy and none of the other products the complainant was seeking to purchase were covered by the legislation. Therefore, it was not necessary to ask the questions as, it could not have been a suspicious transaction as defined in the Regulations. Furthermore, the complainant was buying only one bottle of hydrogen peroxide. I note the complainant purchased hydrogen peroxide in another pharmacy without being subjected to any questioning. Likewise, I note that an Irish person was not subjected to any questions when he sought to purchase hydrogen peroxide from the respondent later that day. If the respondent’s policy in relation to the sale of hydrogen peroxide applied to all customers equally, the Irish customer would have been asked questions about its intended use also. I am satisfied that the complainant has established that he was treated less favourably than an Irish person was treated in comparable situation. I find therefore that the complainant has established a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment on the race ground. I find that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case on the religion ground. He failed to establish that he was treated less favourably than a person with a different religious belief or a person with no religious beliefs was treated in similar circumstances. |
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 the complainant was not discriminated against on the religion ground contrary to the Equal Status Acts. I find that the complainant was discriminated against on the race ground contrary to the Equal Status Acts. Under section 27(1) of that Act redress may be ordered where a finding is in favour of the complainant. Section 27(1) provides that: "the types of redress for which a decision of the Director under section 25 may provide are either or both of the following as may be appropriate in the circumstances: (a) an order for compensation for the effects of the discrimination; or (b) an order that a person or persons specified in the order take a course of action which is so specified." I order the respondent to pay to the complainant the sum of €700 (seven hundred euro) to compensate him for the distress caused to him. |
Dated: September 11th 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marian Duffy
Key Words:
Equal Status Acts, Time Limits, S. 14 requirement under an enactment, less favourable treatment on race and religion ground. |