ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00018262

Parties:

Complaint(s):

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/02/2019

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Caroline McEnery

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 21 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.

Background:

There were six claims taken and so I heard the claims together as they are all related to the same incident and rely on the same facts. The Complainants are all members of one family who made one booking for two adjoining rooms with Dott Treasa Holdings Ltd’s hotel on 26 May 2018. The Booking was made over the phone on 13 April 2018 using a Visa Debit Card.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

Kathleen Cleary is married to Joseph Cleary and resides in Galway with their four children Ellen, Mary, Stacy and Joseph aging from sixteen to nine years old. They are members of the traveller community. I heard the claims together as they are all related to the same incident and rely on the same facts.

Kathleen Cleary’s son, Joseph has a disability and he wanted to go to the Aquadome for his first communion so they made a reservation for two nights stay in a hotel situated close by.

On 13 April 2018 Kathleen Cleary called the hotel to make a reservation for two nights on 26 and 27 May 2018. Kathleen Cleary made a hotel reservation for two adults and four children and discussed adjoining family room when booking. The Hotel requested card details to which Kathleen Cleary provided her direct debit card details and agreed the cost of €400. Kathleen Cleary queried if she had to pay now or on arrival and she was informed by the Hotel that she could pay on arrival. Kathleen Cleary stated that she was not asked if she had a credit card at the time of booking.

Kathleen Cleary received an email confirming her booking on 13 April 2018 from the Hotel. Kathleen stated that the email did not state that credit card details were required for the booking.

On 24 May 2018 Kathleen Cleary received a call from the Hotel to confirm she would be staying in the hotel. Kathleen stated that she then asked when she was required to pay and if this was to be paid by card or if she could pay by cash when she arrived to the Hotel.

Kathleen Cleary and her family arrived to the Rose Hotel at 8pm approximately and checked in. The receptionist gave her a form to sign and then provided her with room keys. The receptionist then requested a credit card. Kathleen Cleary stated that she only had a visa debit card. The receptionist then stated that Kathleen Cleary could not be permitted to stay at the hotel without providing a credit card. Kathleen Cleary felt that this was because she was a member of the traveller community. Kathleen stated that there were two receptionists on duty at the time.

Kathleen stated that one of the receptionists called her Manager. The Manager spoke with Kathleen Cleary and stated that she would not be allowed stay in the hotel without providing a credit card as it is hotel policy. Kathleen Cleary stated that she requested to see this policy. Kathleen stated that the Manager did not apologise and stated that she could go to the Gardaí or her Solicitor. Kathleen Cleary stated that she felt she was discriminated against from arrival at the hotel and felt that another person would not be treated this way.

Kathleen Cleary stated that she was provided with a room key and the only excuse given to refuse a stay in the hotel was not holding a credit card. Kathleen Cleary stated that she along with her children were very upset. Kathleen stated that she felt embarrassed and this took place for 15-20 minutes. Kathleen stated that she felt that the memories of her child’s communion had been upset based on this incident.

Kathleen Cleary stated that she requested for the Manager to call the Gardaí but he refused to call them. Kathleen’s husband Joseph Cleary called the Gardaí who advised him that it was a civil matter. As it was a Saturday night Kathleen Cleary stated that they were unable to secure another hotel booking so late and as a result had to travel home and return to the Aquadome the following day as her son really wanted to go. Kathleen Cleary provided a receipt for the Aquadome for 27 May at 4.30pm approximately.

Kathleen Cleary stated that this had a big impact on her children who felt that it was as a result of being members of the traveller community that they were not allowed stay in the hotel.

On 18 June 2018 Kathleen Cleary’s Solicitor wrote to the Rose Hotel in reference to the issue and confirmed that they take proceedings if necessary. Kathleen Cleary received a letter from her Solicitor saying that they will progress proceedings and the WRC is the only proceedings available. The Solicitor for the Rose Hotel replied and asked for receipt of their letter of 24 July 2018.

A letter was sent by the Rose Hotel and received by Kathleen Cleary’s Solicitors on 26 September 2018. The Rose Hotel offered 5 nights stay or €500 for the “experience”. This was three months after the event had taken place. The Rose Hotel stated that the credit card policy should have been explained at the time of booking.

Kathleen Cleary and her family were all upset that they could not stay and stated that the Rose Hotel did not apologise or say they were sorry for the inconvenience. Kathleen Cleary stated that they were made to feel that it was because they were part of the traveller community.

Joseph Cleary stated that he took out cash and placed it on the reception desk stating that he would pay in cash. The Rose Hotel stated that they were unable to take cash.

Joseph Cleary rang the Gardaí to explain the issue and they stated that it was a civil matter and it would have to be dealt with by a Solicitor. Kathleen stated that the Manager requested that her and her family would not wait at the reception desk and moved them into a corner. Kathleen Cleary feels that even if the policy existed that it is not included in the booking form or mentioned anywhere else in relation to the requirement to provide a credit card.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The General Manager (GM) of the Hotel stated that it is hotel policy that a credit card is required to secure bookings in case of any unpaid bills. The GM stated that they do accept cash as payment but require credit card to secure the booking also. The Complainants should have been advised of this when booking. The GM states that they do have members of traveller community attend the hotel.

The Hotel wrote to the party referencing the experience of 26 May stating that there was one mistake that Kathleen Cleary should have been told from the outset that a credit card was required.

The GM stated that he was no on duty at the time of the incident but explained that another manager was on duty that evening. There was nobody present to contradict the evidence given on the day.

The hotel accept that there was a mistake made at the time of booking which was their failure to inform Kathleen from the outset of the booking that a credit card was required. The GM explained that at the time of the incident there had been a national issue with Visa Debit fraud.

The hotel stated that the terms and conditions say the credit card is required to guarantee the reservation and that the credit card will be charged in full at the time of booking.

The Hotel stated that only three children were booked in and only three attended on the day. The Hotel has CCTV to show three children attended and not four children.

The Hotel accepts that this was an incident of bad customer service and have offered compensation as stated in the letter as a result. They accept that there was a training issue with the member of staff with whom the booking was made over the phone. The Hotel stated that Kathleen Cleary and her family were not referred to as members of the traveller community at any stage.

Findings and Conclusions:

Preliminary issue – Notification

Section 21 (2)(a) of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 - 2015, states that

"Before seeking redress under this section, the complainant-

(a) shall, within 2 months after the prohibited conduct is alleged to have occurred, or, where more than one incident of prohibited conduct is alleged to have occurred, within 2 months after the last such occurrence, notify the respondent in writing of-

(i) the nature of the allegation,

(ii) the complainant's intention, if not satisfied with the respondent's response to the allegation, to seek redress under this Act.”

The Complainant did not submit the ES1 notification form to the Respondent at any point. The Complainant’s solicitor did write to the hotel on 18 June 2018 following the incident where the alleged discrimination occurred on 26 May 2018. In this letter, the solicitor did set out the details of the incident which had taken place. I reviewed this letter to ascertain if it satisfied the notification requirement under Section 21(2). I must be satisfied that it sets out:

(i) the nature of the allegation, and         

(ii) the complainant's intention, if not satisfied with the respondent's response to the allegation, to seek redress under this Act.” (emphasis added)

In examining the letter of the 18 June 2018 and the second letter of 24 July 2018, it does provide details of the incident of 26 May 2018 and states that the Complainants request an apology in relation to the matter and requests its proposals to provide compensation for the Complainants. However it is crucially important to note that the letters do not make any reference to the Equal Status Acts or to seeking redress under the Equal Status Acts. The letter of 18 June 2018 only stated that “appropriate proceedings without further notice to you” would be brought upon the Respondent if they had not responded within 14 days. The Complainant or the Complainants solicitor did not complete the ES1.

I conclude that the letters of the 18 June 2018 and 24 July 2018 do not amount to notification for the purposes of the Acts and do not meet the requirements of a notification as prescribed under Section 21 (2).

Decision:

Section 27 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.

As the notification requirements set out in Section 21 (2) of the Act were not fully complied with, I find that I have no jurisdiction to investigation or determine a decision.

Dated:   3rd May, 2019

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Caroline McEnery

Key Words: