Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Micheál Kelliher

DAA Plc

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00026448-001

21/02/2019

The Complainant is deaf and made this complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission on 21/02/2019 following an incident of alleged discrimination at an airport.

On Wednesday 19th September I was waiting at the gate 335 at an Airport watching the monitor for the flight to Toulouse. However, the monitor wasn’t updated and the announcement on the gates being changed was made through the tannoy. I’m deaf and I didn’t hear it. So, I missed the flight.

The Respondent is a statutory body which is responsible for managing two airports in Ireland.

The Complainant’s flight was scheduled to depart from Gate 335 on 19th September 2018.   Gate 335 is part of a boarding gate process, referred to as the South Gates. All passengers departing on flights from the South Gates are required to board a shuttle bus at Gate 335 and are thereafter transported on the shuttle bus to a separate boarding area, which is not accessible on foot.   Passengers board the actual aircraft from the separate boarding area.

The Respondent updates its Flight Information Screens based on information provided by the airlines and handling agents. Each individual airline itself operates its own monitors at individual boarding gates and such monitors will show updates on the flight such as boarding, final call or gate closed. The Respondent cannot opine on what information was displayed on the monitors operated by the airline on the date in question, however, it is expected that the following will occur:

a) passengers flying on the scheduled flight would be informed via the monitor that the flight was boarding at Gate 335. Airline staff might also make announcements at this point, via a telecom system, that passengers will embark a shuttle bus from Gate 335.

b) the airline staff would carry out passenger and ticket checks at Gate 335 and inform the passengers to go through the gate and embark the shuttle bus and

c) the shuttle bus would then bring the passengers to the separate boarding area from which they would board the plane.

It appears that the Complainant implicitly accepts in his ES1 Form that a) actively updating the Flight Information Screens and monitors and b) notifying passengers re flight updates via texts and social media, would satisfy his particular needs.   The Respondent has discharged its duties in this regard as follows:

a) the Flight Information Screens operated by the Respondent on the date in question displayed the correct up to date information. Passengers were directed to go to Gate 335 which is the place from which the Complainant was to board the shuttle bus and

b) any direct communication with a passenger re his/her flight via text or email takes place between the passenger and the airline itself. The Respondent is not an airline operator and does not have access to a passenger’s email address or mobile number in order to provide him/her with updated flight information (this information is personal data and the Respondent would not have access to such personal data).

CONCLUSION

The Respondent has engaged a service provider to provide passenger assistance services to passengers using the airport who may have disabilities. Customer Care Agents are specifically trained and coached to recognise and support those with ‘hidden disabilities’ including hearing impairments.   Passengers at the airport can use one of the many Help Points located throughout the campus to gain assistance or can go to the service providers reception desk on the departures floor in Terminal 1 or in the check in level in Terminal 2 for assistance. Furthermore, passengers can also go directly to their check-in desk and inform airline staff during their check in that they have requested assistance at which point a representative from the service provider will arrive to provide assistance. This service is included within the Airport Charges which are set by the Commission for Aviation Regulation and which are applied equally across all passengers using the Airport. It would appear that the Complainant did not make himself known to either the Respondent or their retained service provider in relation to his disability.

The Respondent has developed an APP which can be downloaded for free by any members of the public. This APP enables users check flight details in general (in real times). Users can also update their own flight details into a section called “My Flights” and such users receive real-time notifications on their selected flight.

Notwithstanding that the Respondent denies any breach by it of the Equal Status Acts in this matter, the Respondent is unhappy that the Complainant had such a negative experience at the Airport. Upon receiving the Form ES1, the Respondent, without admission of any liability (which for the avoidance of doubt, the Respondent denies):

a) offered to reimburse the Complainant for the missed flight and any further expenses he incurred as a result of missing the flight – the Complainant accepted this offer and DAA has made the relevant reimbursements.

b) provided the Complainant with a €200 voucher as a gesture of goodwill and

c) proposed to the Complainant that he attend the Airport to provide advices and personal experience as to how the Respondent might improve its services for passengers with hearing impediments. The Complainant took up this offer and met with the Respondent staff members on 25th April.

The Complainant informed the Respondent’s staff at the meeting that he had in fact boarded the shuttle bus at Gate 335 and it was at the separate boarding area that he experienced difficulties. Ireland was experiencing inclement weather conditions on the day in question and members of the public would have been aware of such conditions (weather warnings had been issued etc). These inclement weather conditions impacted the operations at the Airport and some flights were delayed and/or cancelled, resulting in a larger volume than normal of passengers in the terminals and at departing gates. The Complainant informed the Respondent staff that after he arrived at the separate boarding area, he chose not to walk to the airline monitors to check the status of his flight as there were limited number of seats available and he wanted to keep his seat. The Respondent submits that it is very rare that any passenger could remain in his/her seat and not have to move to check monitors for up to date information.

The Respondent submits that its practices and procedures applied at the Airport are sufficiently adequate to accommodate the needs of people who have hearing impediments.   Furthermore, the Respondent submits that it is not liable to the Complainant under Section 21 of the Equal Status Acts.

Notwithstanding all the above, the Respondent will continue to consider and seek ways to improve passenger experiences at Irish Airports and would like to continue to work with the Complainant in this regard.

I am satisfied that the Complainant was treated differently to his fellow passengers who have no hearing impairment.

One has to consider all the facts of the incident and what may or may not have contributed to the events on the day in question i.e. 19th September 2018.

At hearing we heard that weather conditions on the day in question were atrocious and that operationally the running of the airport was severely impacted by these conditions, flights were experiencing significant delays, some being cancelled, in a word things were chaotic.

The Respondent representative explained the operation at gate 335 and explained how each individual airline have their own responsibilities at boarding gates.

The Complainant, to his credit, is currently working with the Respondent in order to avoid issues that may arise with passengers who have hearing impairments.

I am satisfied that the Complainant has been discriminated against, that there was no malice on the part of the Respondent and it is possibly debateable whether the incident was foreseeable or otherwise.

In ordering the Respondent to pay compensation to the Complainant I have taken the above into account. I order the Respondent to pay compensation to the Complainant in the sum of €1,000.

As outlined above.