ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00025364

Parties:

Complaint(s):

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/02/2020

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gerry Rooney

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, a father of two children attending a Primary School, submitted that the alleged behaviour of the school in failing to provide him with information relating to his children’s attendance, amounted to discrimination on the grounds of gender. The period of alleged discrimination was from November 2018 to June 2019.   The Respondent refuted the complaint and submitted a prima facia case of discriminatory treatment did not exist.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complaint is the father of two children attending a Primary School which is an Educational Establishment.

The Complainant is estranged from the mother of the children, and where the children lived with the mother. The non-attendance at school by one of the children from November 2018 to June 2019 became a concern for the Complainant and he submitted the school failed to provide him information regarding the child’s attendance, why the child did not make their first communion, why the Complainant could not attend a parent teacher meeting, why he could not attend meetings regarding the child’s absence, and why he was not informed of the child’s lateness for school.   The Complainant maintained the children’s mother was kept informed and the Respondent’s failure to include him amounted to discrimination on the grounds of his gender.

Other issues relating to the children’s treatment and an alleged abduction was referred to by the Complainant.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent refuted that it discriminated in the provision of services to the Complainant. The Respondent submitted that the children were enrolled in the school in September 2016, and for that year both parents signed a consent from on behalf of their children. For the year 2017-2018 only the mother signed the consent form, and she also confirmed her consent for the year 2018-2019. On that basis, unless they were informed otherwise, the mother was the default point of contact regarding issues relating to the Children

Attendance concerns arose with one of the children from November 2018 and where both parents were contacted by the Respondent. Evidence was presented by the Respondent confirmed the Complainant was invited to a meeting in December 2018 and was also contacted about the matter in January 2019. The Respondent submitted that it became aware of parental difficulties between the Complainant and his wife at the meeting in December 2018.

Issues relating to the child’s attendance were referred by the Respondent to the Child and Family Agency (Tusla) where both parents signed a consent form. The National Education Psychology Service (NEPS) became involved in January 2019. The Respondent acknowledged a series of interventions and actions took place regarding the child between January and March 2019, and in March 2019 the Complainant contacted the Respondent to speak to the Principal who was not available that day. A call to the Complainant was returned unanswered the following day and the Respondent met with the Complainant in April 2019 where the Complainant was advised to contact an Education Welfare Officer (EWO) from Tusla as the child’s nonattendance was being dealt with by that service.

A series of engagements took place between the Complainant and the Respondent during April to June 2019, and where the Complainant was directed to the EWO service regarding some of the information he was seeking. The Complainant was provided with the child’s attendance records on 12th April 2019. The Respondent and the EWO also updated the Complainant on matters in April, May and June 2019. Further correspondence occurred between the Complainant and the Respondent regarding the children in August 2019, and a written update was provided to the Complainant in October 2019 which advised the children had niot attended school from the start of the 2019/2020 year.

The Respondent maintained it had made all reasonable efforts in responding to the Complainant’s requests for information about the children’s attendance at school and in light of the family situation the circumstances were challenging.  

The Respondent contended it has not breached the Equal Status Act,2000 (the Act) and that the Complainant has failed to establish a prime facia case of discrimination under the Act.

Findings and Conclusions:

The matter referred for adjudication is whether or not the complainant was discriminated against pursuant to Section 3(1)(a) and 3(2)(a) of the Equal Status Act (the Act) and in terms of Section 7 (2) of that Act. In reaching my findings I have taken into account all the submissions, both oral and written, made to me by the parties in the course of my investigation into the complaint. The details of the circumstances regarding the children which were raised during the hearing are not recounted in the summaries above. I am satisfied the appropriate agencies have been involved in the situation and I empathise with all the parties involved and acknowledge the issue was a matter of distress for the Complainant. It is recognised that the circumstances were difficult for the Complainant, and where the Complainant does not believe the Respondent treated him fairly in how it responded to his concerns. The evidence submitted supports that the Respondent did in fact respond to the Complainant’s issues, and met with Complainant on a number of occasions. Some of the evidence is disputed between the parties.

With respect to a complaint under the Act, a person making an allegation of discrimination must first establish a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment. Once a prima facie case of discrimination has been established by the Complainant, the burden of proof then shifts to the Respondent to rebut the presumption of discrimination.

Section 2 of the Equal Status Acts defines “service” as a service or facility of any nature which is available to the public generally or a section of the public generally or a section of the public and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, includes access to and use of any place. The Respondent is an Educational establishment, and therefore section 7 of the Act applies.  

Section 7(2) of the Act states that An educational establishment shall not discriminate in relation to— (a) the admission or the terms or conditions of admission of a person as a student to the establishment; (b) the access of a student to any course, facility or benefit provided by the establishment, (c) any other term or condition of participation in the establishment by a student, or (d) the expulsion of a student from the establishment or any other sanction against the student.

The Complainant was not a pupil of the Respondent or a person that could legitimately avail of the services provided by the Respondent as set out in Section 7(1) of the Act.   On that basis the nature of the Complainant’s case does not apply to section 7 of the Act. I therefore do not find a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment exists in this instance.

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.

As I have not found a prima facia case of discriminatory treatment exists, I do not find in favour of the Complainant and therefore do not uphold the Complaint.

Dated:   28th October 2020

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gerry Rooney

Key Words: