ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00014967

Parties:

Complaint(s):

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 18/01/2019

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Caroline McEnery

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 21 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the party an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.

Background:

The Complainant booked to stay in The Gleneagle Hotel on 10 December 2018 with her husband who is also making a claim with their children. The Complainant was asked to leave the hotel as her husband caused trouble in the hotel. The claim is this was as a result of discrimination. Because both claims rely on the same facts I have heard the complaints together and issue a decisions that refers to each claim.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

Both complainants gave evidence and I have referenced both.

Margaret Sheridan stated that she gave a different name at the time of booking the accommodation as her husband’s surname has a bad reputation. Margaret Sheridan also stated that she put Charleville as her home address on the booking as Rathkeale for the same reason from being in the media and getting bad publicity.

Margaret Sheridan stated that she was walking back to their bedroom within the hotel when the hotel manager approached them and stated that her husband was not welcome in the hotel as he had caused trouble in 2012/2013. Margaret Sheridan stated that the manager used her maiden name when referring to her husband “Mr. O’Donoghue” to which John Sheridan responded saying “if you know me that well, why don’t you know my correct name.

Margaret Sheridan stated that the manager advised them he was calling the Gardaí to get them removed from the hotel. Margaret Sheridan stated that the manager used the wording “ye people” when advising them that her husband was not welcome in the hotel due to rooms being vandalised and staff being spit on. Margaret Sheridan stated that John Sheridan asked the hotel manager if his wife had done anything wrong to which the manager responded “yes”. Margaret Sheridan stated that she asked the hotel manager where she was expected to go with two children at such a late time in the evening. Margaret Sheridan stated that the hotel manager offered them a refund however they refused it.

Margaret Sheridan stated that she stayed in the hotel 6 or 7 years previous. Margaret Sheridan stated that they loved their stay on this occasion and there were no issues. Margaret Sheridan stated that they went twice a year with her husband and four children. Margaret Sheridan stated that she also went with her parents on occasion.

Margaret Sheridan stated that there was one incident at the hotel approximately 10 years ago with her daughter who was eight at the time. On this occasion Margaret Sheridan stated that her daughter slipped as a result of a staff member not giving her a towel. Margaret Sheridan stated that she went to Shannon Doc and the hotel followed up with her after to see how her daughter was doing. Margaret Sheridan stated that they didn’t sue the hotel and had returned since that incident occurred.

During cross examination when asked why she used a different name and address on her booking if she had such a good relationship with the hotel, Margaret Sheridan responded stating that she uses her maiden name and Charleville address for all bookings rather than her married name and current address in Rathkeale. Margaret Sheridan stated that her husband said he was going to go to his solicitor to which the manager of the hotel responded by saying he was used of those cases and that he always wins.

Margaret Sheridan stated that her husband wasn’t with her at time of check in.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent stated that the only reason for the refusal to admit John Sheridan on 10 December 2017 was due to the previous behaviour of John Sheridan and others in his company, in particular over the period of New Year’s 2012/2013. The respondent stated that following this incident, a decision was made to refuse any future accommodation bookings from any individuals who were identified as being part group who had caused the misbehaviours which occurred over that period.

The respondent stated that the only reason why the 10 December 2017 booking of John Sheridan and Margaret Sheridan was accepted was because they used false names and an addresses when making the booking. The Respondent’s Deputy Manager, Martin Brett, recognised John Sheridan from his previous visit to the hotel and informed him that he was not welcome at the hotel. The Respondent stated that when Martin Brett approached John Sheridan, he gave him a false name “Mr. O’Donoghue” and denied he had ever been in the hotel before. The Respondent stated that Martin Brett was certain that John Sheridan had been part of the group who had engaged in bad behaviour around New Year’s 2012/2013 and informed him that, due to this previous bad behaviour, he was not welcome at the hotel and asked him to leave.

The Respondent stated that John Sheridan then became aggressive and confrontational and refused to leave the hotel.

The Respondent stated that Margaret Sheridan threatened to sue the hotel. Martin Brett informed John Sheridan that if he would not leave then he would have to ring the Gardaí. John Sheridan stated that he did not care and also admitted that his name was not “Mr. O’ Donoghue”. The Respondent stated that Martin Brett then called the Gardaí and John Sheridan began berating him, shoving a mobile phone in his face and started recording Martin Brett despite Martin Brett requesting that he stop doing so.

The Respondent stated that John Sheridan threatened to sue the hotel and questioned why he was being asked to leave. The Respondent stated that Martin Brett once again explained it was due to his previous bad behaviour in 2012/2013. The Respondent stated that when the Gardaí arrived the John Sheridan and Margaret Sheridan confirmed their real names and addresses, which did not accord with the names and addresses they gave when they booked the hotel. The Respondent stated that Martin Brett confirmed that Margaret Sheridan was not being asked to leave the hotel and that if she left the hotel, it was her own decision to do so. The Respondent stated that Martin Brett also confirmed to John Sheridan, Margaret Sheridan and to the Gardaí that they would be getting a refund. The Respondent stated that John Sheridan and Margaret Sheridan both refused the refund which was proffered.

The Respondent stated that the reason Martin Brett addressed John Sheridan as “Mr. O’ Donoghue” was because upon being recognised from the group who previously caused trouble in the hotel, Martin Brett asked John Sheridan his name to which he responded “Mr. O’ Donoghue”.

The Respondent stated that John Sheridan was part of a group who were in the hotel at New Year’s 2012/2013. The Respondent stated that the parties of the group were intoxicated and intimidating to staff and customers while in the public areas and entertainment venues of the hotel. The Respondent stated that such misbehaviours included breaking glasses, throwing rubbish, spitting, cursing and raucous behaviour in front of other guests. The Respondent stated that they also received noise complaints from bedrooms and corridors due to non-residents going to bedroom areas and children who were family members of the group of which John Sheridan was a part of were left unattended and running freely around the hotel.

The Respondent stated that as a result of this behaviour they had to refund other guests of the hotel due to their bad experience. The Respondent stated that the actions of this group in 2012/2013 resulted in damage to the hotel’s good name and reputation.

The Respondent stated that on review of the incidents over the aforementioned New Year’s period, a decision was made by the hotel not to accept any bookings from any of the group members who were identifiable to The Gleneagle.

The Respondent stated that the only reason they were allowed to check into the hotel in December 2017 was because they used a false name and address to book to accommodation. As a result of this false information provided, this was not picked up by the hotels booking system. The Respondent stated that the reservation for December 2017 would not have been accepted if the correct name and address had be provided at the time of booking.

The Respondent stated that John Sheridan was recognised by Martin Brett as being a member of the group from 2012/2013 and so was not welcome in the hotel. The Respondent stated that they were offered a refund as the money was proffered to them but however they refused same. The Respondent stated that Margaret Sheridan was advised that she was not barred from the hotel and the choice was hers as to whether she wished to remain or not. The Respondent stated that John Sheridan acted aggressively towards Martin Brett on 10 December 2017 and stated that he was going to go to his room and the hotel would not be able to get him out of it. The Respondent stated Martin Brett made a decision, following this comment, to disable John Sheridan’s key to stop him barricading himself into the room or causing any damage to the room. The Respondent stated that Margaret Sheridan’s key was not disabled and she went up to the room with Martin Brett and the Gardaí where she gathered their belongings and returned to the lobby.

The Respondent stated that all customers are treated equally and any claim of discrimination is denied in the strongest possible terms. The Respondent stated that their request of John Sheridan to leave the premises had nothing to do with his status as members of the Travelling Community. The Respondent stated that the sole reason was due to the previous bad behaviour of John Sheridan in 2012/2013.

Martin Brett stated that John Sheridan was a frequent guest of the hotel so he recognised him when he seen him. Martin Brett stated that there was a serious issue with the worst level of behaviour on New Years in 2012/2013 with a group of 120 people. Martin Brett stated that a decision was made following this occasion to bar all parties this particular group. Martin Brett stated that behaviour of the group included urinating in public places, threats being made to staff members and intimidation of other customers. Martin Brett stated that the most damaged caused to the hotel following this incident was complaints they received as a result and financial loss due to refunds that had to be made. Martin Brett stated that the large volume of people in the group made it impossible for the hotel or Gardaí to control. Martin Brett stated that it was public order offences at the time of the incident. Martin Brett stated that they did not make complaints to the Gardaí following the incident.

Martin Brett stated that when he met John Sheridan in the hotel in December 2017 he asked for his name and room number to which John Sheridan responded with 118 and “Mr. O’ Donoghue”. Martin Brett stated that he recognised John Sheridan having been a member of the group which had been barred in 2012/2013 and therefore he was not welcome in the hotel. Martin Brett stated that he is 100% certain John Sheridan was involved in the incident which occurred on New Year’s 2012/2013. Martin Brett stated that Margaret Sheridan is less well known to him and therefore she was not requested to leave the premises as Martin Brett stated he didn’t know if she was involved in the incident in 2012/2013.

Martin Brett stated that the first time he heard John Sheridan state his real name was when he was speaking to the Gardaí. Martin Brett stated that John Sheridan advised him that he intended to barricade himself into his bedroom. Martin Brett stated that John Sheridan started to video the incident to which Martin Brett asked him to stop. Martin Brett stated that he does not recall using the term “ye people” and stated that if he had used that term, he was referring to the group from 2012/2013 who had caused trouble in the hotel.

Martin Brett stated that he would not have approached John Sheridan or taken against especially given that there were two children with him unless he was 100% certain that he had been part of the group in 2012/2013.

Martin Brett stated that there have been lots of different people barred from the hotel over the years.

Martin Brett stated that they had been coming to the hotel as a family group for years and they were members of the traveller community.

Martin Brett stated that he was immediately able to identify John Sheridan 6 years later as being a member of the group in 2012/2013 and was therefore being blamed for the offence.

Head of Security: Head of Security stated that there was a serious issue with a group who stayed in the hotel on New Year’s 2012/2013. Head of Security stated that there were issued with crowd control, seats being taken, ladies sitting near the dancefloor and children out of control. Head of Security stated that he himself witness three male members of the group urinating outside the hotel and when he spoke up he was surrounded by the members of the group. Head of Security stated that non-residents had room numbers to access to residents events.

Head of Security stated that he recognised John Sheridan from being a previous guest of the hotel and there had never been any issues until the incident in 2012/2013. Head of Security stated that he was 100% sure that John Sheridan was at the event in 2012/2013 as he was with another guest who is well known to Head of Security. Head of Security stated that he cannot recall if Margaret Sheridan was at the incident in 2012/2013. Head of Security stated it is harder to identify women when they are dressed up.

Health & Safety Manager: Health & Safety Manager stated that she has been an employee of the hotel for 13 years. Health & Safety Manager confirmed that all staff are trained in equality and dignity and respect including Martin Brett. Health & Safety Manager stated that they do not allow guests return to the hotel who have been barred for bad behaviour.

Health & Safety Manager stated that they welcome members of the traveller community and had a traveller wedding recently. Health & Safety Manager stated that there were no issues at that wedding and explained that guests were moved from the restaurant to a private venue to give them the wedding experience.

Health & Safety Manager stated that they have an employee who is a member of the traveller community and there are no issues with this. Health & Safety Manager stated that they would know people are members of the traveller community because they tell them.

Findings and Conclusions:

I am considering my findings and conclusions relevant to both cases. In reaching my decision I have taken into account all of the submissions, oral and written, made to me in the course of the investigation as well as the evidence presented at the hearing.

Section 38(A) of the Equal Status Act, 2000 and 2004 sets out the burden of proof which applies in a claim of discrimination.    

38A.—(1) Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a Complainant from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination in relation to him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.  

In deciding on this complaint, I must first consider whether the existence of a prima facie case has been established by the complainant. It is only where such a prima facie case has been established that the onus shifts to the respondent to rebut the inference of discrimination raised.  

Margaret Sheridan was not asked to leave the hotel and was welcomed to the hotel when she checked in. Margaret Sheridan’s claim hasn’t met burden so it fails.

In line with Section 3 (1) and (2) of the Equal Status Act, 2000 and 2004;

(1) For the purposes of this Act, discrimination shall be taken to occur where:

(a) on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as “the discriminatory grounds”) which exists at present or previously existed but no longer exists or may exist in the future, or which is imputed to the person concerned, a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated,

(b) (i) a person who is associated with another person is treated, by virtue of that association, less favourably than a person who is not so associated is, has been or would be treated, and

(ii) similar treatment of that person on any of the discriminatory grounds would, by virtue of paragraph (a), constitute discrimination,

or

(c) (i) a person is in a category of persons who share a common characteristic by reason of which discrimination may, by virtue of paragraph (a), occur in respect of those persons,

(ii) The person is obliged by the provider of a service (within the meaning of section 4 (6)) to comply with a condition (whether in the nature of a requirement, practice or otherwise) but is unable to do so,

(iii) substantially more people outside the category than within it are able to comply with the condition, and

(iv) the obligation to comply with the condition cannot be justified as being reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.

(2) As between any two persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are:

(i)that one is a member of the Traveller community and the other is not (the “Traveller community ground”),

Section 5(1) provides that:

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 15(1) of the Act:

For greater certainty, nothing in this Act prohibiting discrimination shall be construed as requiring a person to dispose of goods or premises, or to provide services or accommodation or services and amenities related to accommodation, to another person (“the customer”) in circumstances which would lead a reasonable individual having the responsibility, knowledge and experience of the person to the belief, on grounds other than discriminatory grounds, that the disposal of the goods or premises or the provision of the services or accommodation or the services and amenities related to accommodation, as the case may be, to the customer would produce a substantial risk of criminal or disorderly conduct or behaviour or damage to property at or in the vicinity of the place in which the goods or services are sought or the premises or accommodation are located.

Decision:

Section 27 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. As per the Acts Section 3(1b)(i) states that discrimination shall be taken to occur where a person who is associated with another person is treated, by virtue of that association, less favourably than a person who is not so associated is, has been or would be treated. In this case, the Complainant stated that her party were discriminated against when their rooms were cancelled at the last minutes as a result of being members of the traveller community.

Margaret Sheridan’s claim didn’t meet required burden to discharge proof of discrimination so this claim fails. Section 3(2i) stated that discrimination shall to taken to occur when one is a member of the Traveller community and the other is not. The Complainant claims to have been discriminated against as they are members of the travelling community. However, Margaret Sheridan’s claim was in relation to her husband being asked to leave the hotel having been identified as a member of a group who had previously caused damage to the hotel. This claim is not well founded.

Dated:   5th April 2019

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Caroline McEnery

Key Words: