ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00011781
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Elizabeth Deans | Harvest Point Ltd. |
Representatives | Self- represented. | Sherlock Law Solicitors.
|
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00016033-001 | 02/10/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/03/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maire Mulcahy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000, following the referral of the complaints 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 complaints
Background:
The respondent asked that his name be corrected. This is reflected in the decision. The complainant, a customer, claims that the respondent harassed her on grounds of gender, age, marital status, nationality and disability in a series of incidents on his premises. The last act of discrimination was in August 2017. The complainant lodged her complaint with the WRC on 26/9/2017. Jurisdictional issue. The respondent points to section 19 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 2003 regarding alleged discrimination in a licensed premises and states that the WRC have no jurisdiction in the matter. |
Jurisdictional Issue.
I must first consider the jurisdictional issue. Section 19 (2) of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 2003 states “A person who claims that prohibited conduct has been directed against him or her on, or at the point of entry to licensed premises may apply to the District Court for redress”. Section 19(1) (b) of the 2003 Act defines prohibited conduct as “discrimination against, or sexual harassment or harassment of, or permitting the harassment or sexual harassment of a person in contravention of Part 11 (Discrimination and Related Activities) of the Act of 2000 on, or at the point of entry to, a licensed premise”. I therefore do not have jurisdiction to consider the complaints of discrimination on any of the grounds set out in section 3(2), (a), (b), (c), (f) and (g) of the Act of 2000 and cited by the complainant nor the complaint of sexual harassment or harassment on any of the grounds cited in section 3 of the Act of 2000. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submits that the respondent’s behaviour contravenes section 3(2) of the Act of 2000. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent points to section 19 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 2003 regarding alleged discrimination in a licensed premises and states that the WRC have no jurisdiction in the matter. The complaint is denied. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Section 19 (2) of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 2003 states “A person who claims that prohibited conduct has been directed against him or her on, or at the point of entry to licensed premises may apply to the District Court for redress”. Section 19(1) (b) defines prohibited conduct as “discrimination against, or sexual harassment or harassment of, or permitting the harassment or sexual harassment of a person in contravention of Part 11 (Discrimination and Related Activities) of the Act of 2000 on, or at the point of entry to, a licensed premise”. The respondent does not come within the definition of a service user as set out in section 2 of the Act of 2000. I therefore do not have jurisdiction to consider the complaints of discrimination on any of the grounds set out in section 3(2), (a), (b), (c), (f) and (g) of the Act of 2000 and cited by the complainant nor the complaint of sexual harassment or harassment on any of the grounds cited in section 3 of the Act of 2000.
|
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 I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint. |
Dated: 23rd April 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maire Mulcahy
Key Words:
Harassment; victimisation on licensed premises. |