ADJ-00011386

Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Caroline McDonald

Guestford Limited

Representatives

Cathal McGreal B.L. instructed by John Feaheny & Company Solicitors

Stephen Moran B.L. instructed by Brian Grogan & Co Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00015255-001

19/10/2017

This dispute involves a claim by the complainant that she was discriminated against by the above-named respondent, contrary to section 3 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000-2015, on grounds of membership of the Traveller Community when she was not permitted to buy a ticket to attend a concert being performed by singer Mr. N which was held in a named hotel on 27th April 2017.   The complainant referred a complaint under the Equal Status Acts, 2000-2015 to the Workplace Relations Commission on the 19th of October 2017.

In accordance with his powers under section 75 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2015 and under the Equal Status Acts, 2000-2015, the Director delegated the case to me for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part III of the Equal Status Acts, 2000-2015.

As required by Section 25(1) and as part of my investigation, I proceeded to a Hearing of this complaint on the 16th of November 2018.    

It is submitted that the complainant attended at Hotel A on the night in question with the intention of attending a concert performed by the singer and performer Mr. N,

the complainant once at Hotel A sought to purchase a ticket for Mr. N’s concert but was refused, and was told that the event was for members only, it is submitted that the complainant was not permitted to buy a ticket for Mr. N’s concert due to the fact that she is a member of the Traveller community,

It is submitted that Hotel A is owned by the named respondent.

It is submitted that

The above-named respondent Guestford Limited is not the correct respondent to these claims,

The incident the subject matter of the claim took place at a different venue which is located in the same complex as Hotel A which is owned by the named respondent, but the venue where the incident took place is not owned by the named respondent,

The above-named respondent had no involvement whatsoever in the delivery of a performance by a named singer at a named venue and had no involvement in the performance the subject matter of this complaint.

Preliminary Issue of Correct Respondent to the claim

It is submitted that the named respondent, Guestford Limited is not the correct respondent for the purpose of this claim and had no involvement whatsoever in the delivery of a performance by a named singer at a named venue on the night in question and that it had no involvement in the performance the subject matter of this complaint.

The complainant and six other named complainants submitted complaints against five named respondents thus there are 35 similar complaints in relation to the same alleged incident of discrimination.   Decisions have previously issued in respect of 21 of these complaints and another seven of the complaints were withdrawn at the hearing of this matter on 16th of November 2018.

The remaining seven claims have been taken against the above-named respondent, Guestford Limited. The above-named respondent advised the hearing that it is a complete stranger to the events complained of and is not the correct respondent to these claims.     The complainants allege that the discrimination took place at Hotel A which is owned by Guestford Limited.

The named respondent advised the hearing that the event the subject of this complaint did not take place in Hotel A which is owned by the named respondent but that it took place at a different venue located in the same complex as the respondent’s hotel. It is submitted that the venue where the event took place is owned by a separate legal entity and that the named respondent is not the correct respondent to these claims.

The named respondent Guestford Limited attended the hearing and submitted that the incident complained of did not take place on the premises of a hotel or venue owned by Guestford Limited.

The complainant’s representative submitted that the respondent could not claim that an incident had not happened on its premises without hearing evidence of the incident.

The complainants at the hearing provided details of the incident which is the subject of the complaint and of the venue they attended on the night in question.

Background to complaint and allegation of discriminatory treatment

The complainants advised the hearing that they arrived at the venue on the night of 27th of April 2017 where they attempted to buy tickets to attend a singing performance by singer/songwriter Mr. N. The complainants told the hearing that they entered the venue without incident. The complainants stated that they went upstairs to the area where tickets were being sold for admission to the concert and they approached two people who were seated at table selling tickets for the performance. The complainants could not say whether these people were employed by the named respondent.  

The complainants advised the hearing that they sought to purchase tickets to attend Mr. N’s stage performance which was being held there on the night in question but stated that they were refused tickets by the ticket sellers at the table and were told that it was ‘members only’.   The complainants dispute this as they say they had phoned ahead to ask if tickets had to be booked in advance and were told they could pay at the door. The complainants submit that there was no mention of it being a ‘members only’ event during this phone call and also that the advertising for the performance had not mentioned that it was a ‘members only’ event.

The complainants described the layout of the venue at which the concert was being held.   The respondent provided evidence to refute the claim that the venue in question was Hotel A which is owned by the respondent and submitted that the event and the incident took place at a different venue which is not owned by the named respondent but which is located in the same area as the respondents hotel.  

Guestford limited have submitted that they are not the correct respondent to this claim and stated that the complainants in their complaint forms had named the wrong respondent.   The respondent added that the incident took place at a different venue which is located in the same area, but which is not owned by the respondent.

I must make a decision on whether the above-named respondent Guestford Limited is the correct respondent to this claim. I am satisfied from the totality of the evidence adduced at the hearing that the incident the subject of this complaint did not take place at Hotel A which is owned by the named respondent and that it took place at a different named venue which is not owned by the respondent, but which is owned by a different legal entity.

Thus, I am satisfied from the totality of the evidence adduced that the above-named respondent Guestford Limited is not the correct respondent to this claim and accordingly the complaint must fail.

I am satisfied from the totality of the evidence adduced that the above-named respondent is not the correct respondent to this claim and accordingly the complaint must fail.