ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00016442

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Alison Hough	Medisec Ireland Clg

Complaint:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000	CA-00021307-001	24/08/2018

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/04/2019

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly

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:

The Complainant stated that as an expectant mother she desired a home birth arrangement. Her GP advised her that they were unable to provide a GP service to her as they do not have insurance cover. She believes that the Respondent has discriminated against her on grounds of her gender and family status by not providing a service to her.

The Respondent has stated that they did not provide any service to the Complainant and so she has no standing to bring a claim against them.

Preliminary Point: - No standing to bring a claim

Respondent’s Position:

The preliminary issue is whether the Complainant has an entitlement to bring a claim against the Respondent. It is their position that the nature of the service that the Complainant’s complaint refers to is not within the WRC’s jurisdiction because the Respondent is not a provider of the service within the meaning of the Act. In addition, there is no connection or nexus between the Complainant and the Respondent necessary to ground a claim.

The Respondent has no relationship with the Complainant and has not provided services to her whatsoever. This claim concerns a GP’s refusal to provide a medical service for which they are not insured. A “Service Provider” under the Equal Status Act is defined as a person responsible for providing a service which can be availed of by the public or section thereof. The Respondent has no relationship with the Complainant and has provided no services to the Complainant. The Respondent’s relationship is with the Complainant’s GP. The GP is a member of the Respondent company. One of the services provided by the Respondent to the GP is to act as an insurance intermediary. The Respondent’s services are provided exclusively to GPs. No service is provided to the public. On this basis the Complainant has no standing to bring a claim against the Respondent. The Respondent has provided no services to the Complainant and has not discriminated against the Complainant in any way. So, the Complainant does not have any standing to bring a claim against the Respondent.

Complainant’s Position:

The Complainant stated that she visited her GP and informed her that she wanted to have a home birth. The GP told her that due to her insurance with the Respondent she could no longer be able to act as her GP for the duration of the pregnancy as she would not be insured. The Complainant believes that this is discrimination against her on grounds of her gender and family status. She believes that there is no requirement for a contractual relationship to exist in order to ground a claim. There is a legal relationship in the provision of the service. She believes that there is broad enough scope in the Act to deal with this type of case. The Respondent supports the majority of GPs in this country and so their policy directly affects the service that the GP can provide to the Complainant. This policy directly impacts on her and has resulted in her GP not providing a service that she requires. This refusal is a direct consequence of the Respondent’s policy and so this is discriminatory on the grounds of her gender and family status. She believes that the scope of the Act is broad enough to allow this claim to be heard.

Decision on Preliminary Point:

I note that Sec 2 of the Equal Status Act clearly sets out the definition of “Service”; service or facility of any nature which is available to the public generally or a section of the public and without prejudice to the generality of the forgoing includes b) Facilities for: (i) insurance.

I note that Sec 5 (1) states “A person shall not discriminate in disposing of goods to the public generally or a section of the public or in providing a service, whether the disposal or provision is for consideration or otherwise and whether the service provided can be availed of only by a section of the public.

In this case I find that the Respondent company provides a service to GPs and part of that service is for them to act as an insurance intermediary, a form of broker. I note that the actual insurance is provided by a named insurance company who decides their own policies, not the Respondent company.

I find that it is the GP who provided the service to the Complainant, not the Respondent company.

I find that there was no relationship with the Complainant and the Respondent has provided no services to her whatsoever.

I find that a “Service Provider” under the Equal Status Act is defined as a person responsible for providing a service which can be availed of by the public or section thereof.

I find that the Respondent has no relationship with the Complainant and has provided no services to the Complainant. The Respondent’s relationship is with the Complainant’s GP.

I find that there was no connection or nexus between the Complainant and the Respondent.

Therefore I find that the Complainant has no standing to bring a claim against the Respondent company.

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.

I have decided that the Respondent does not provide any service to the Complainant whatsoever.

I have decided that there is no connection or nexus between the Complainant and the Respondent necessary to ground a claim under this Act.

I have decided that the Complainant has no standing to bring a claim against the Respondent.

I have decided that this complaint is misconceived and so is not well founded.

Dated: 15/05/19

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly

Key Words:

No standing to bring a claim, Misconceived Complaint