Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Matthew Reilly

Link Credit Union Limited

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Matthew Reilly

Link Credit Union Limited

Representatives

Alison Reilly

Rebecca Lacy BL

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00028032-001

29/04/2019

The complainant’s case is that he was not allowed to enter a car draw run by the credit union because he had a disability.

The complainant was refused entry into the car draw on 19th November 2018 despite his mother having put money into his account to pay for his entry on 15th November 2018 . It was claimed that he was informed on 22nd November 2018 that one of the reasons behind the credit union’s refusal to allow him to enter the draw was that he would not be in a position to use the car if he won it. It was also alleged that legal advice was only sought by the credit union to explain the reasons for the complainant’s exclusion after he was refused entry into the draw.

The Respondent’s representative claimed that I do not have jurisdiction in this matter given the complainant’s failure to comply with Section 21 of the Equal Status Acts 2000.

Preliminary Matter:

Before proceeding to examine the evidence, I must firstly address and make a decision on the preliminary submission furnished by the respondent’s representative, wherein it is claimed that I do not have jurisdiction to hear this matter.

I note that the WRC has published a Guide to Equal Status Acts for the complainant (September 2017). This sets out the two-step process in accordance with Section 21 of the Act, which ought to accompany a complaint of discrimination in relation to the provision of goods or services.

1. There is a requirement to write to the respondent within 2 months of the alleged incident, setting out the nature of the complaint and saying that if you are not happy with their reply, you may seek a remedy under the Equal Status Acts. It is clear from the Act that the complaint is not valid unless this measure has been adhered to.

2. The WRC provides an ES1 form to assist that process and this must be lodged within 6 months of the date of the incident. A copy of this form should accompany any complaint before the WRC.

If notification has not been issued to the respondent within the 2 month timeframe, the complaint is said to be out of time. There is provision to seek an extension of time to 4 months from the date of the incident. While the complainant’s family submitted that there were exceptional circumstances which explained the failure to comply with the 2 month timeframe, namely the death of a family member in February 2019, I note firstly that this was more than two months after the date of the alleged incident and also that legal representation had been engaged in December 2018.

The purpose of the ES1 form is to allow the respondent some time to engage with the complainant with a view to seeking to resolve the matter. Provision is made for information sharing, if same is requested by the complainant. In this instance, the complainant did not place the respondent on notice of an intention to refer the case to the WRC and the required ES1 form did not accompany the complaint that was made to the WRC.

I am tasked with ensuring that all aspects of Section 21 of the Act have been met. In this case, on the basis of the evidence presented to me, I have found that exceptional circumstances did not pertain, which would have justified an extension of the 2 month period. Moreover, I note that the required ES1 form was not completed or shared with the respondent and that it did not accompany the complaint form lodged to the WRC.

 Accordingly, I do not have jurisdiction in this matter.

CA-00028032-001: Given that I do not have jurisdiction in this matter, the complaint cannot succeed.