Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00018026-001

17/03/2018

The Complainant is an Irish national of Egyptian origin. He submitted a complaint of discrimination on grounds of race and religion under the Equal Status Act on 17 March 2018.

The Respondent objected to the incorrect submission of the complaint as the complainant had not complied with S21 of the Act on notification. The Respondent argued further that the remit of the Equal Status Act governed goods, services and facilities to the public and was “beyond the scope of an employment relationship “

The Respondent sought that the case be dismissed in accordance with Section 22 of the Act.

The Complainant outlined that he was of Egyptian race and Muslim faith and had been discriminated against on those grounds in his workplace. He explained that he was very distressed by his experiences on foot of a 17-year history of employment.

He outlined that he had submitted an extensive submission prior to the Hearing which had been copied to the Respondent. He detailed that he had been singled out at work.

The Complainant listened to the Preliminary Argument advanced by the respondent that he had not complied with the Section 21 notification requirements, that his complaint was grounded on matters of employment rather than Goods and Services and was therefore advanced under the wrong Act.

The Complainant sought to be heard on his complaints and asked that he be allowed to advance on his issues of employment given his level of distress. Things had gone wrong for him at work. The Complainant argued that the Equal Status and the Employment Act were indistinguishable.

Preliminary Issue:

On April 26,2018, the Respondent furnished a response to the complaint. The respondent Solicitor set out that the case should be dismissed as:

1 The Complainant had not advanced a complaint in the context of his work, nor had he complied with Section 21 notification requirements.

2 The complaint referred to an employment issue rather than Goods and Services.

The respondent offered to hear the Complainant on his workplace discrimination issues, but sought that the matter be dismissed at the outset.

The WRC requested that the matter be presented at the Adjudication Hearing.

At the hearing, the Respondent Solicitor submitted that the complaint as lodge did not comply with section 21 of the Act and the case was advanced under the wrong legislation

I have listened carefully to the parties in this case. I have considered the documentation advanced by both parties. I have also read the Complainants submission dated 14 August 2018.

Preliminary Issue :

During my investigation, I found that there was no record of an ES1 submitted in this case. The WRC publishes a very helpful guide to the Equal Status Act for Complainant, dated September 2017.

The Guide provides information on the complainant’s obligation to notify the respondent within 2 months of the allege incident, setting out the nature of the complaint and saying that if unhappy with the reply, a pathway to seeking a remedy under the Equal Status Acts awaits. This embraces Section 21 of Act:

(2) Before seeking redress under this section, the complainant —

(a) shall, within 2 months after the prohibited conducted is alleged to have occurred, or, where more than one incident of prohibited conduct is alleged to have occurred, within 2 months after the last such occurrence, notify the respondent in writing of —

(i) the nature of the allegation,

(ii) the complainant’ s intention, if not satisfied with the respondent’ s response to the allegation, to seek redress under this Act,

and

(b) may in that notification, with a view to assisting the complainant in deciding whether to refer the case to the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission or, as the case may be, the Circuit Court, question the respondent in writing so as to obtain material information and the respondent may, if the respondent so wishes, reply to any such questions.

The Complainant confirmed at hearing that he had not complied with this aspect of the complaint notification requirements.

Immediately, on commencement of the hearing, the complainant advanced his case on employment matters. When requested by the adjudicator whether his case involved behaviour about the provision of goods and services, the complainant was uncertain. I explained the parameters of Section 5 of the Act and the apparent disconnect with the circumstances of the instant case. I also shared a copy of the WRC Guide with the parties.

I adjourned the hearing for 10 minutes to allow the complainant to reflect on his complaint and whether he had any evidence of alleged discrimination he wished to outline in relation to provision of Goods and Services involving the Respondent.

The Hearing reconvened and the Complainant asked to advance his employment issues under the Equal Status Act as he saw no difference between the Employment Equality and Equal Status Acts.

The Respondent offered to address any workplace issues with the complainant in the workplace.

During the hearing, I was struck by the complainant’s distress and his stated need to resolve his workplace issues.

However, Notwithstanding the lack of compliance with Section 21 notification requirements, I find that the complainant has an active employment issue which is misconceived as a complaint under the Equal Status Acts.

In her expansive book on the Equal Status Acts 2008 -2011, Judy Walsh discusses the parameters of the Equal Status Acts 200-2011.

The Acts outlaw certain discriminatory practices in the field of public service provision and limit the rights of private property owners who transact with the public (or section of the public) ……..

Discrimination Law imposes duties on those who benefit from transactions with members of the public.

The Equal Status Act does not apply unless Goods and Services are offered to the public at large or a section of the public.

I am hopeful that this extract goes some way to confirming the limitations to the Equal Status Acts.

I note that the Respondent has now offered to meet directly with the complainant in the workplace to address his issues.

I find that I must dismiss this case as being misconceived in accordance with Section 22(1) of 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 have heard the parties on the complaint. I have some sympathy for the complainant as a lay litigant. He was clearly in distress regarding a work issue .

However, I must dismiss this case as being misconceived in accordance with Section 22(1) of the Equal Status Acts 2000-2015. The claim was advanced under the incorrect legislation. It is clearly a matter of employment rather than the provision of goods and services.