Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Employee

Employer

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00013243-001

23/08/2017

The Complainant sent a Form ES. 1 to the Respondent on 18th August 2017. The Form did not specify a detriment nor specify a ground. The Complainant sent a copy of the Form to the Workplace Relations Commission. The WRC replied to the Complainant on 28th August 2017 informing him that submission of the Form did not constitute a referral of an actual complaint and explained to him what he had to do to refer a complaint.

A WRC Complaint Form was received by the WRC on 27th July 2018 however it did not specify the grounds for the alleged discrimination.   The WRC wrote to the Complainant on 31st July 2018 asking him to state the ground(s) under which he was making his complaint.   In response to the query from the WRC the Complainant wrote on 6th August 2018, "I confirm I am classifying my complaint on the grounds I am a male and a regular travel commuter on Bus Eireann services."

The Complainant submitted that he had made his complaint because of a long running series of refusals to be allowed travel on the No.30 bus route. The first incident took place in 2010 but company inaction meant the Complainant's complaints were not dealt with properly.

The Complainant submitted that the victimisation he had suffered was due to baseless allegations that he had (i) interfered with tickets, (ii) had been involved in altercations and behavioural episodes with several drivers and (iii) had been a difficult passenger brandishing letters from ministers etc. and making threats to drivers in relation to his future intentions.

In his submission the Complainant denied all the allegations made against him and submitted that he had had to write to the then Chairman of the Respondent company to inform him of the intimidation he had been subject to by an inspector in the company. The Complainant did not receive a reply from the Chairman.

The Complainant also outlined an incident which took place in December 2011 when he was prevented from boarding a bus and abused by a driver, necessitating an unplanned overnight stay in a Bed & Breakfast.

The Complainant submits that he wrote to the new CEO of the Respondent Company in 2017 to try and bring a fresh perspective on a resolution and a way forward. The Complainant also wrote to the Chairman of National Transport Authority but he believes the response was inconclusive and unsatisfactory.

Other incidents took place in early 2017 when the Complainant was again refused travel on the bus.

In May 2017 the Complainant had a meeting with the Respondent Company's Services Manager who gave him assurances that the matter had been resolved and there would not be any repeats; this did not materialise and there were more incidents where the Complainant was refused travel.

In June 2018 the Services Manager requested the Complainant attend a round table discussion in the company of the drivers. The Complainant refused this invitation on the grounds it was a climb down and in bad faith on what had been discussed and agreed before.

In his submission the Complainant stated that having sought legal advice on the matter he was now bringing his case on service grounds. The Complainant submits that he was discriminated against in this respect over a long period of time preventing travel on Bus Eireann schedules from a bus only travel area. The Complainant submits that he has suffered unjustified victimisation by an organisation which in the past failed to bring forward any credible or sustainable resolution to bring an end to the humiliation and wrongs inflicted on him.

In oral evidence at the hearing the Complainant outlined the difficulties he had experienced with bus drivers on his route for several years and the efforts he had made with the Respondent, ministers and the NTA to have the matter resolved, to no avail.

The Complainant did state that things had seemed to improve with the arrival of the new Services Manager and that he does not have any issues with the current drivers.

The Complainant believes he is due some redress as he has been discommoded.

In response to questions, the Complainant stated that his ground was based on the fact that he is a male commuter. When asked for a comparator he suggested the "collective that travel on the bus", that his complaint was that he does "not have access to a service on a particular (bus) service." The Complainant stated that he had been victimised as he had to forgo trips.

In concluding the Complainant reiterated his view that issues in the past had not been dealt with properly, however he now believes a new dawn has kicked in, the new scene is friendlier, and he has no issues with drivers more recently. Notwithstanding this he has had to protect his good name and believes he is due some redress.

The Respondent's problems with the Complainant arose in 2008 when he was discovered by inspectors on two occasions attempting to reuse punched tickets [a claim denied by the Complainant]. This led to the Complainant being told by an inspector at the headquarters that he would not be allowed to use the No. 30 bus service between Dublin and Donegal.

However, after a period the Complainant was once again a passenger on this route and from a period from 2010 and for several years thereafter there were a series of verbal altercations between the Complainant and the number of the drivers on this route.

The Complainant instigated a campaign of letter writing to senior managers at the Respondent Company, to managers at the National Transport Authority and successive Ministers at the Department of Transport.

This is the situation described in the letter by a former Chief Executive of the Respondent Company in his letter to the Complainant of the 13th of June 2013. This letter describes the circumstances of the refusal of certain drivers on the route to take the Complainant as a passenger. Nonetheless, the Complainant continued to be a passenger on this route and as the route expanded with new drivers, there was less of a problem.

But there continued to be sporadic incidents involving the Complainant and some of the longest serving drivers who had had dealings with the Complainant previously. Following complaints by the Complainant in 2018 the Respondent Company's Services Manager asked the Complainant if he would like to meet for "Round Table discussions", but this offer was refused. However, following a meeting with the senior drivers in question the Services Manager wrote to the Complainant on the 19th of July 2018 informing him that all drivers had agreed to welcome the Complainant on board the bus service with immediate effect. In reply the Complainant emailed the Services Manager to say that he would not be testing the bona fides of the offer made to avoid rejection. The Respondent Company believes that far from avoiding potential situations of conflict the Complainant has at times sought them out.

The Respondent Company does not maintain that its drivers are blameless but believes that these altercations arose primarily from the provocative behaviour by the Complainant. The Respondent has attempted to deal with his complaints as best it can.

The Respondent submits that it certainly did not mistreat the Complainant because he is a male passenger, or for any other reason set out in the Equal Status Act. The Complainant continues to be a regular passenger on the Respondent's buses and the Respondent has made a commitment to him that he will not be prevented from using the service by the drivers he has complained of.

In oral evidence at the hearing the Respondent's former regional manager for the area in question stated that the Respondent was doing its best to resolve the dispute between the drivers and the Complainant but at the end of the day the Respondent has a duty of care to its drivers and must support them.

The Respondent's Services Manager stated that he has been trying to get the dispute sorted and he had invited the Complainant to a "Round table meeting" and was surprised when the Complainant turned down his offer. The manager stated that the offer of such a meeting, to try and get the dispute resolved, was still available.

In response to questions the Respondent stated that a Customer Charter exists, covering travelling customers and includes an accessibility policy. The Respondent also state that it is extremely rare for customers to be told that they cannot avail of a service. Asked whether any disciplinary action had been taken against the drivers on foot of complaints made by the Complainant, the Respondent did not know of any having been taken.

In concluding, the Respondent put forward that the allegation of discrimination was denied and that the allegation that the Complainant had been treated less favourably by reason of his gender does not make sense. The Respondent believes the matter has nothing to do with prejudice or discrimination.

The Respondent ended by stating that the offer of a meeting to try and resolve the matter still stood.

This is an unfortunate situation and one which both parties seem keen to resolve. The dispute seems to have eased lately and I hope a final push by both parties could result in the matter being resolved for good.

In reaching my decision regarding a breach of the Act, I have considered all the submissions, oral and written, made to me during the investigation as well as the evidence presented at the hearing.

Section 38(A) of the Equal Status Act, 2000 and 2004 sets out the burden of proof which applies in a claim of discrimination.    

38A.—(1) Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a Complainant from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination in relation to him or her, it is for the Respondent to prove the contrary.  

In deciding on this complaint, I must first consider whether the existence of a prima facie case has been established by the Complainant. It is only where such a prima facie case has been established that the onus shifts to the Respondent to rebut the inference of discrimination raised. 

Having considered the matter, I cannot find any link between the Complainant's gender and the alleged difficulties he has experienced on the bus service.

In this instance, I find that the Complainant has not established a prima facie case and therefore his complaint cannot succeed. 

The initial probative burden rests with the Complainant to establish a prima facie case of discrimination as alleged. He has failed to discharge this burden. I conclude my investigation and I find the complaint to be unfounded.

Gender, services, bus travel, dispute