Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A member of the travelling community

A limited company

Representatives

Clare-ann Temple Benville & Robinson

Did not attend 

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00030376-001

19/08/2019

The Complainant is a member of the travelling community and resides in County of Wicklow.

The Respondent is the licence holder in the pub in Wicklow Town, in the County of Wicklow.

The Complainant booked a birthday party for his wife by way of telephone call with a representative/staff member of the Respondent on 14th March 2019. The telephone call took place between the hours of 17.15 and 18.00. The party was to celebrate her 33rd birthday. The reservation was for between 40 and 50 women in the function room and was to include finger food. It was agreed between the parties that the cost of the booking was €250.00 and the room was booked for 7pm for a party due to take place on 4th April 2019.

A representative/staff member of the Respondent accepted the booking on the phone and requested the Complainant to drop in a deposit. It was agreed that the Complainant would drop down a deposit approximately 15 minutes after the phone call. The Complainant attended at the Respondent’s licenced premises, accompanied by his wife and two children within the agreed time frame. When the Complainant attempted to pay the deposit for the party, a staff member alleged that he could not locate the book to confirm the event. The staff member refused to take the deposit and notified the Complainant and his wife that the manager identified as J… would call them back.

It was clear to the Complainant and his family that the staff member had difficulties with his ethnicity. The story put forward by the Respondent was not credible. The Complainant’s wife was embarrassed at the interaction and left the premises with her two children. The Complainant and his family submit that the staff member refused to take the booking when he realised that the Complainant and family were members of the travelling community.

The Complainant did not receive a phone call from the Manager of the Respondent Company as promised. As such, the Complainant telephoned the premises on three occasions on the 19th March 2019. During one such phone call, the Complainant spoke to a staff member who identified himself as a Manager by the name of J….. When the Complainant identified himself as XXX, the staff member started repeating the word “Hello” and alleged he could not hear the Complainant. It is not accepted that there were difficulties with the phoneline and it is submitted that the staff member pretended not to hear the Complainant as he was refusing to take the booking for discriminatory reasons.

The Complainant telephoned the Respondent premises back straight away and requested to speak to the Manager J… again. The Complainant was told that the manager James was unavailable to take the call which is again not accepted by the Complainant and is not plausible due to the time frame involved.

The Complainant and his wife were embarrassed and humiliated at the refusal to take the booking.

On 25th April 2019, the Complainant’s solicitors wrote to the Licence Holder at the company’s registered address in Tallaght, County Dublin and at the licensed premises in Wicklow Town setting out details of the discriminatory behaviour. No response was received to the correspondence

On 7th May 2019, an ES1 notification from was served on the company’s registered office and at the licensed premises. An ES2 form was enclosed for a reply to be furnished. No response or ES2 reply was received. As such, on 15th August 2019, a complaint was filed with the WRC.

The Complainant has filed a claim of discrimination based on membership of the travelling community contrary to section 3 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000-2015.

The Complainant submits discrimination has occurred as he has been treated less favourably than another person, has or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) and due to his membership of the travelling community. The Complainant submits that the Respondent, its staff and/or agents would not have treated another person in the way himself and his family were treated. The party was booked over the phone and the Complainant submits that he was subjected to discriminatory behaviour when the Respondent refused to take the booking, pretended not to locate a book to take the deposit, refused to return/take calls and pretended not to hear the Complainant on the phone. The Complainant submits that the sole reason behind this behaviour is the discriminatory attitude of the Respondent due to his membership of the travelling community.

No appearance for or on behalf of the respondent. I am satisfied that the respondent was on notice of the hearing date, time and venue.

Section 19 Intoxicating Liquor Act, 2003 defines “prohibited conduct” as   “discrimination against, or sexual harassment or harassment of, or permitting the sexual harassment or harassment of a person in contravention of Part II (Discrimination and Related Activities) of the Act of 2000 on, or at the point of entry to, licensed premises.”

3.—(1) For the purposes of this Act, discrimination shall be taken to occur where—

(a) on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as “the discriminatory grounds”) which exists at present or previously existed but no longer exists or may exist in the future, or which is imputed to the person concerned, a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated,

(2) As between any two persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are:

(i) that one is a member of the Traveller community and the other is not (the “Traveller community ground”),

I must first establish whether I have jurisdiction to hear the within complaints.

The complainant alleges that he and his wife were discriminated against by the respondent on two occasions. Firstly, on the 14th March when they attended at the premises of the respond pay the deposit for the booking. The alleged discrimination occurred on the premises and as such comes within the Jurisdiction of the District Court pursuant to Section 19 above.

Secondly, on the 19th March when the complainant called to confirm the booking for his wife, the manager J… who answered the call pretended not to be able to hear the him on the phone. He clearly could hear him prior to knowing who he was. I am satisfied based on the uncontested evidence of both the complainant and his wife that they were treated less favourable than someone who is not a member of the travelling community when the respondent attempted to avoid taking their booking. That discrimination took place over the phone and therefore is not of the type anticipated by Section 19.

In all of the circumstances I find that the complainant has established a prima facia case of discrimination, accordingly his complaint succeeds. I am awarding the complainant €5,000.00 compensation.

The complaint succeeds. I am awarding the complainant €5,000.00