Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Joe  O'Brien

Iarnrod Eireann

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00030083-001

06/08/2019

The complainant availed of the train service provided by the respondent on 26 June 2019, accompanied by a young child in a buggy.

The complaint was submitted to the Workplace Relations Commission on 6 August 2019 following notification of the allegation to the Respondent on 28 June 2019 as required by Section 21 (2) of the Equal Status Act, 2000.

The complainant represented himself while the respondent was represented by the Industrial Relations Manager, the Accessibility Officer and the CCE M&E Manager.

On 26 June 2019, the complainant attempted to use the respondent’s services accompanied by his young son in a buggy.  At the departure station Skerries, there were difficulties using the lift, however the complainant was assisted by the station master on duty in accessing the lift.

On his return journey from Balbriggan, the lift was not working.  There was a hand-written note stating that the SOS button should be used to contact staff to open the lift.  The complainant pressed the SOS button but received no response.  He was not able to access the lift but was eventually able to access the platform opposite when another passenger came to his assistance.

The complainant stated that the lift at skerries station is regularly broken, often for an extended period.  He also stated that he had requested information from the respondent but that this was not forthcoming. He suggested that the respondent’s approach and the persistence of incidents in relation to the lift indicate a level of disregard on the part of the respondent. The complainant submitted that this treatment amounted to discrimination on the basis of Family Status.

The respondent accepted the complainant’s version of events but submitted that this amounted to a bad customer experience rather than amounting to a prima facie case of discrimination under the Family Status ground.

The respondent noted that the lift at Skerries railway station was out of order on 27 occasions between 2018 and the date of the alleged incident.  Of this number, 20 incidents were repaired on the same day, with a further 3 being rectified the following day.  It was submitted that lifts at Skerries, Balbriggan and a further four stations are the subject of numerous incidents due to antisocial behaviour and accidental damage.  It has tried to put in place a system to reduce the number of incidents such as the use of shutters, and a ‘passenger call’ system.  These changes have been introduced to protect users of the service from accident and to maintain the system for those who have a special need for these lifts.

The respondent submitted that the system is newly installed, having been rolled out to a number of stations over the last 18 months, but accepted that the SOS button was not answered on the day in question.  It submitted that as with any new service there is a little bit of ‘trial and error’ but that human error was responsible for the failure to answer the SOS button in this instance.  It outlined the steps that have been taken to ensure that this situation does not arise again, including the greater use of supervision in the monitoring process. The respondent also noted that the environment in which the service operates creates a challenge in protecting the infrastructure used by all of their customers.

It was noted by the respondent’s Accessibility Officer who was present at the hearing that the respondent has various customer feedback initiatives in place but accepted that there is specific parent/family users’ group (although members of various panels are parents too).

CA-00030083-001

Having considered all the information presented to me, and although the respondent outlined multiple instances of the lifts not working during the hearing, I am satisfied that the complaint before me relates to one incident where the lift was not operating, and the SOS button was not answered.

Section 3(1) of the Equal Status Act, 2000 states that

For the purposes of this Act discrimination shall be taken to occur—

(a) where a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) or, if appropriate, subsection (3B),(in this Act referred to as the ‘discriminatory grounds’) which—

(i) exists,

(ii) existed but no longer exists,

(iii) may exist in the future, or

(iv) is imputed to the person concerned,

(b) where a person who is associated with another person—

(i) 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 a comparable situation, and

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

or

(c) where an apparently neutral provision F10[would put a person] referred to in any paragraph of section 3(2) at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons, unless the provision is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.

I note the difficult environment created for the respondent by repeated instances of antisocial behaviour combined with the accidental damage to the lift facilities at a number of train stations.  I also note that it has aimed to improve the service for the major cohort of its service users.  Nonetheless, I find that the level of service available to other users was not available to the complainant in this instance.

I note the steps that the respondent has taken to ensure the system operates effectively in the future and further note the complainant’s suggestion that the system is not particularly intuitive from a user perspective.

Having regard to the foregoing, I am satisfied that the complainant has established the existence of discrimination in relation to the incident described.

CA-00030083-001

I have concluded my investigation of this complaint and based upon the foregoing, I find pursuant to Section 25 that the complainant has established a prima facie case of discrimination on the family status ground, which has not been rebutted therefore this complaint succeeds and I award the complainant €200.

Family Status, Prima facie case