ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00002804
Parties:
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Mark Savage | Google Ireland Limited |
Representatives |
| A&L Goodbody Solicitors |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00004081-001 | 18/03/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 26/06/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
This was a re-convened hearing. Difficulty arose at the initial hearing about whether the respondent was the correct respondent or legal entity. At that time, proceedings were due to take place to resolve that aspect of the matter in the High Court. However, they did not do so and the matter was listed for hearing and decision again. It is also one of three almost identical cases. Please see ADJs 345 and 8870. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant says that an on-line search engine has permitted information about him to remain in the public arena despite his efforts to have it removed. His complaint is under the ‘religion ground’. He was described as ‘homophobic’ for comments he made about gay people which he made on foot of his religious beliefs. The search engine refused to take these comments down although it has acted to do so in other cases. On the identification of the respondent legal entity he says that a company may be sued in any style of name. He has been permitted to sue the respondent in the US and the Data Protection Commissioner accepted a complaint in the name he wishes to use here. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent resists the Complaints in their entirety.
The complaints should be dismissed as a preliminary matter on the basis that the Respondent does not own or operate the Search engine, and is accordingly not the appropriate party to the complaints.
The Respondent has made this assertion since it received the first complaint form.
On 25 November 2015 the solicitors for the Respondent wrote to the WRC requesting that this first complaint be struck out under Section 22(1) of the Equal Status Act 2000 (as amended) and dismiss the Complainant's claim as being wholly misconceived and/or vexatious.
The Respondent has consistently requested that this first complaint and the subsequent complaint issued against Google Inc. t/a Google Ireland Limited be dismissed on this basis, both through correspondence to the WRC on 25 November 2015 and 2 February 2016 and at the hearings of 9 February 2016, 5 April 2016 and 26 June 2016.
At the hearing of 5th April 2016 the Complainant agreed to withdraw the two complaints against Google Inc. t/a Google Ireland Limited acknowledging that he had only submitted the third complaint because of his issue in identifying the correct respondent entity.
He subsequently refused to withdraw the two complaints.
An application is also made for an award of expenses is made on behalf of Google Ireland Limited in relation to the travel and witness expenses incurred in defending the Complainant's complaints as referred to in the forms received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 28 October 2015 and 17 December.
The Respondent respectfully requests that the WRC exercise its power under section 37A of the Equal Status Act 2000 (as amended) and order an award of expenses against the Complainant for obstructing or impeding an investigation.
Section 37A of the Act provides the following:
"the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission may, if of opinion that a person is obstructing or impeding an investigation, order that the person pay to another person a specified amount in respect of the travelling or other expenses incurred by that other person in connection with the investigation."
The Complainant has taken two frivolous and vexatious claims in respect of substantially the same issue.
The Respondent has had to appear before the WRC on four occasions (9 February 2016, 5 April 2016, 17 August 2016 and 26 June 2018) in relation to the same preliminary issue of the incorrect respondent entity (Google Inc. t/a Google Ireland Limited).
The Complainant agreed to withdraw his two complaints in the WRC hearing of 5 April 2016, acknowledging that he had only submitted the third complaint (against Google Ireland Limited) because of the respondent entity matter. He subsequently reneged upon this agreement and the Respondent had to appear before the WRC once again on 26 June 2018.
The Respondent has incurred considerable expense in defending these claims and requests an award of €300 to be made in respect of travel and witness expenses to the sum of €300 against the Complainant. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The correct identification of a respondent is an important matter for obvious reasons. While cases under employment law statutes are anonymised this is not the case under this legislation and a finding against an incorrectly described entity would be a serious matter. More importantly, under all legislation which comes before the WRC there are rights of appeal and sometimes, in due course, enforcement. An incorrectly described entity would fall at either of these hurdles also, thereby putting parties to pointless effort and wasting valuable public resources. In this case the complainant somewhat contradictorily relied on the fact that he had been authorised to initiate proceedings outside the jurisdiction, although this, if anything confirms that the various respondents in this suite of complaints are the wrong ones. An onus falls on a complainant to ensure that a complaint is formulated in such a way that parties to a complaint are not put to excessive or unnecessary inconvenience. In most cases, where human error is a factor, or unrepresented parties unfamiliar with the process make minor errors this may not give rise to difficulty. Following the hearing the complainant submitted hyperlinks to a number of decisions of courts in various parts of the world involving what he suggested were similar cases and inviting the Adjudicator to type the word Google into the search bar of the links ‘to see approx. 60 cases of law from around the world’ which he appeared to believe were relevant to his case. A complainant is required to present their case at the hearing arranged to hear their complaint and advance any relevant or persuasive legal precedent on which they intend to rely, and in such a way that the respondent can make any counter argument and the adjudicator can inquire into any points arising. An open ended invitation to an adjudicator to review over sixty cases from jurisdictions around the world after a hearing has taken place, and which had not been opened for consideration at the hearing would be both procedurally inappropriate and logistically impossible. In this case, I accept the submission of the respondent regarding the quite unnecessary inconvenience to which its witnesses have been subjected, and while I may make no award of costs I do award in these exceptional circumstances the expenses claimed of €300.00. In this case the complainant is familiar with the processes of the WRC and his persistence with complaints he must have known to have wrongly identified the respondent is not excusable. I find that the named respondent in this case has no responsibility for the search engine and that the correct respondent has not been identified and therefore the complaint falls. |
Decision:
Section 25 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.
For the reason set out above I do not uphold complaint CA-4081-001 and it is dismissed. In accordance with the provisions of Section 37A of the Act I order the complainant to pay to the respondent €300.00 ‘in respect of the travelling or other expenses incurred by that other person in connection with the investigation’. |
Dated: 25/01/19
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
Identity of respondent. |
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00002804
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Mark Savage | Google Ireland Limited |
Representatives |
| A&L Goodbody Solicitors |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00004081-001 | 18/03/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 26/06/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
This was a re-convened hearing. Difficulty arose at the initial hearing about whether the respondent was the correct respondent or legal entity. At that time, proceedings were due to take place to resolve that aspect of the matter in the High Court. However, they did not do so and the matter was listed for hearing and decision again. It is also one of three almost identical cases. Please see ADJs 345 and 8870. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant says that an on-line search engine has permitted information about him to remain in the public arena despite his efforts to have it removed. His complaint is under the ‘religion ground’. He was described as ‘homophobic’ for comments he made about gay people which he made on foot of his religious beliefs. The search engine refused to take these comments down although it has acted to do so in other cases. On the identification of the respondent legal entity he says that a company may be sued in any style of name. He has been permitted to sue the respondent in the US and the Data Protection Commissioner accepted a complaint in the name he wishes to use here. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent resists the Complaints in their entirety.
The complaints should be dismissed as a preliminary matter on the basis that the Respondent does not own or operate the Search engine, and is accordingly not the appropriate party to the complaints.
The Respondent has made this assertion since it received the first complaint form.
On 25 November 2015 the solicitors for the Respondent wrote to the WRC requesting that this first complaint be struck out under Section 22(1) of the Equal Status Act 2000 (as amended) and dismiss the Complainant's claim as being wholly misconceived and/or vexatious.
The Respondent has consistently requested that this first complaint and the subsequent complaint issued against Google Inc. t/a Google Ireland Limited be dismissed on this basis, both through correspondence to the WRC on 25 November 2015 and 2 February 2016 and at the hearings of 9 February 2016, 5 April 2016 and 26 June 2016.
At the hearing of 5th April 2016 the Complainant agreed to withdraw the two complaints against Google Inc. t/a Google Ireland Limited acknowledging that he had only submitted the third complaint because of his issue in identifying the correct respondent entity.
He subsequently refused to withdraw the two complaints.
An application is also made for an award of expenses is made on behalf of Google Ireland Limited in relation to the travel and witness expenses incurred in defending the Complainant's complaints as referred to in the forms received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 28 October 2015 and 17 December.
The Respondent respectfully requests that the WRC exercise its power under section 37A of the Equal Status Act 2000 (as amended) and order an award of expenses against the Complainant for obstructing or impeding an investigation.
Section 37A of the Act provides the following:
"the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission may, if of opinion that a person is obstructing or impeding an investigation, order that the person pay to another person a specified amount in respect of the travelling or other expenses incurred by that other person in connection with the investigation."
The Complainant has taken two frivolous and vexatious claims in respect of substantially the same issue.
The Respondent has had to appear before the WRC on four occasions (9 February 2016, 5 April 2016, 17 August 2016 and 26 June 2018) in relation to the same preliminary issue of the incorrect respondent entity (Google Inc. t/a Google Ireland Limited).
The Complainant agreed to withdraw his two complaints in the WRC hearing of 5 April 2016, acknowledging that he had only submitted the third complaint (against Google Ireland Limited) because of the respondent entity matter. He subsequently reneged upon this agreement and the Respondent had to appear before the WRC once again on 26 June 2018.
The Respondent has incurred considerable expense in defending these claims and requests an award of €300 to be made in respect of travel and witness expenses to the sum of €300 against the Complainant. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The correct identification of a respondent is an important matter for obvious reasons. While cases under employment law statutes are anonymised this is not the case under this legislation and a finding against an incorrectly described entity would be a serious matter. More importantly, under all legislation which comes before the WRC there are rights of appeal and sometimes, in due course, enforcement. An incorrectly described entity would fall at either of these hurdles also, thereby putting parties to pointless effort and wasting valuable public resources. In this case the complainant somewhat contradictorily relied on the fact that he had been authorised to initiate proceedings outside the jurisdiction, although this, if anything confirms that the various respondents in this suite of complaints are the wrong ones. An onus falls on a complainant to ensure that a complaint is formulated in such a way that parties to a complaint are not put to excessive or unnecessary inconvenience. In most cases, where human error is a factor, or unrepresented parties unfamiliar with the process make minor errors this may not give rise to difficulty. Following the hearing the complainant submitted hyperlinks to a number of decisions of courts in various parts of the world involving what he suggested were similar cases and inviting the Adjudicator to type the word Google into the search bar of the links ‘to see approx. 60 cases of law from around the world’ which he appeared to believe were relevant to his case. A complainant is required to present their case at the hearing arranged to hear their complaint and advance any relevant or persuasive legal precedent on which they intend to rely, and in such a way that the respondent can make any counter argument and the adjudicator can inquire into any points arising. An open ended invitation to an adjudicator to review over sixty cases from jurisdictions around the world after a hearing has taken place, and which had not been opened for consideration at the hearing would be both procedurally inappropriate and logistically impossible. In this case, I accept the submission of the respondent regarding the quite unnecessary inconvenience to which its witnesses have been subjected, and while I may make no award of costs I do award in these exceptional circumstances the expenses claimed of €300.00. In this case the complainant is familiar with the processes of the WRC and his persistence with complaints he must have known to have wrongly identified the respondent is not excusable. I find that the named respondent in this case has no responsibility for the search engine and that the correct respondent has not been identified and therefore the complaint falls. |
Decision:
Section 25 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.
For the reason set out above I do not uphold complaint CA-4081-001 and it is dismissed. In accordance with the provisions of Section 37A of the Act I order the complainant to pay to the respondent €300.00 ‘in respect of the travelling or other expenses incurred by that other person in connection with the investigation’. |
Dated: 25/01/19
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
Identity of respondent. |