Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Complainant

A Registered Charity

Representatives

Beauchamps Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00031490-001

09/10/2019

The Complainant has filed a complaint under section 21 of the Equal Status Act against the respondent on 9/10/2019. The Respondent is a registered charity which provides professional supports for children and their families. Following family law proceedings in the Dublin Circuit Court the Complainant filed a complaint under Section 21 of the Equal Status Act 2000 against the Respondent. The Complainant alleges that he was discriminated against by virtue of a Section 47 report which was submitted to the Circuit Court under the provisions of the Family Law Act 1995. The Respondent submits that such proceedings were held “in camera” and therefore cannot articulate a response to the complaint. Both the Complainant and Respondent submitted a number of preliminary matters in relation to the complaint.

The Complainant is an Irish citizen. During the course of Circuit Court proceedings the Respondent “bullied me and subjected me to disproportionate bias, partiality, erroneous, threatening, intimidating and unfavourable treatment on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin and gender in violation of my equal rights protected by Articles 2 (1); 2(2)(a); 2(2)(b); 2(3) and 2(4) of the Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 and in particular breached my equal rights protected by the following points of law” and in that context specified a number of sections of the Equal Status Acts and UDHR Articles.  

The Complainant also made a number of preliminary points in relation to a referral to the European Court of Justice in relation to the interpretation and validity of EU Regulations and Directive (Article 267, TFEU) and also a request that any published decision or communication from the Workplace Relation Commission in relation to this complaint would be anonymised.

There were two Respondents named in this complaint. The first named respondent is a registered charity which provides practical and professional supports to children and their families. One such service is the Guardian Ad Litem service which provides a Section 4 Report in certain legal proceedings.

The second named respondent is a registered social worker who was appointed as a Guardian Ad Litem by a Judge of the Circuit Court in relation to family law proceedings.

The Respondent’s legal representative a raised a number of preliminary issues in relation to the instant complaint. The second named respondent did not attend the hearing but was legally represented. It was submitted on behalf of the second named respondent that that “in compliance with the “in camera” rule and her professional obligations,” she has not commented not cannot comment on any aspect of the family law case which is the subject of this complaint.

In relation to the first named respondent it was submitted that the Complainant in this case should have made an application to the Circuit Court which hear the family law matter by way of an appeal of the Court’s judgement or order in the event of any such judgement or order being issued.

It was also submitted on behalf of the first named respondent that the in camera rule would be breached by the disclosure of any information and documents in relation to the hearing which gave rise to this complaint. In that context it was also submitted that the Adjudication Officer is precluded from hearing the complaint and further submitted that the case of HSE v LN & JQ [2012]IEHC 611 whereby the High Court held that a strict liability applied in that case concerning a breach of the in camera rule, which that Court considered was a category of criminal contempt.

The Respondent also submitted that the notion of “service” as per Section 5(1) of the Equal Status Acts was also relevant in that the service was provide at the request of the Courts and not directly to the Complainant.

I have decided, based on the sensitivities of this case to exercise my discretion and anonymise this decision.

Having heard a considerable amount of views from both parties in relation to the totality of the preliminary matters I decided to adjourn the hearing in order to make a decision on the preliminary matters. That decision would then determine how or if the substantive matter would be progressed.

I accept the substance of the submissions advanced on behalf of the Respondents on the question of my jurisdiction under the Act to entertain this complaint.

Accordingly, I have decided that I do not have jurisdiction to take this case beyond this point.

I have decided that I have no jurisdiction to hear this matter and the complaint cannot succeed.

Jurisdiction,   preliminary matters,