Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Roberto  Alamazani

Workplace Relations Commission

Representatives

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00023652-001

30/11/2018

The complainant referred a complaint against the respondent on 30 November 2018 alleging the respondent discriminated against him on the grounds of gender, age and race. The allegations relate to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) regarding the administration of another complaint made by the complainant against the WRC. He contends that both this was discriminatory because of his race.

This complaint is one of many referred by the complainant against the WRC or individuals working for the WRC, arising from other complaints made by the complainant to the WRC.

In these circumstances, this complaint was initially considered on the basis of the referral only as to whether it was ‘frivolous, vexatious or misconceived’ in accordance with section 22 of the Equal Status Acts.

This complaint is made under the Equal Status Acts and section 5 (1) of  the Act 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.” and Section 3 (1) provides that for the purposes of the Equal Status Acts, discrimination shall be taken to occur where: “On any of the grounds referred to in sub-section (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.”

The service complained of the administration of the WRC and the grounds ticked on the referral form were; gender and race, however, in the following narrative the complainant only made reference to race. He stated:

“I am offended with the content of the respondent communication dated the 23rd day of October 2018 and the refusal by its adjudication services to postponed the hearing at Letterkenny while I have informed them that I had another hearing to attend. This is racism and discrimination in its pure form and there are no other ways to describe it. The decision is racially motivated, in order to punish me because I have filed several complaints for discrimination against the WRC and its adjudicators for discriminating me during hearings. This is not the first time that I am the victim of discrimination by the adjudication services. And my rights under the Acts have been violated to an unprecedented scale. This is completely and utterly unacceptable. I feel demeaned, insulted and discriminated. It’s against the Law discriminating people as clearly stated under the Equal Status Acts 2000-2015. The way I have been treated is discriminating against me and victimizing because I am BLACK. I strongly believe that if I was WHITE, the treatment will be different.”

The purpose of the Equal Status Acts is to provide redress for people who have been treated less favourably in the provision of services on one or more of the “discriminatory grounds” covered by the Acts. In this case the ground is race.

As held by the Labour Court in Anthony v Margetts (EDA038) in a case taken under the Employment Equality Acts: "The mere fact that the complainant falls within one of the discriminatory grounds laid down under the Act is not sufficient in itself to establish a claim of discrimination. The complainant must adduce other facts from which it may be inferred on the balance of probabilities that an act of discrimination has occurred."

Furthermore, the Labour Court in Arturs Valpeters v Melbury Developments Ltd, (EDA0917), another case taken under the Employment Equality Acts said there has to be “evidence of some weight from which it could be concluded that persons of a different race or nationality were or would be treated more favourably. All that has been proffered in support of that contention is a mere assertion unsupported by any evidence.”

In this case the complainant had made no reference to any specific acts or actions, he is putting forward “mere assertion” and no evidence related to a discriminatory ground.

Section 22 of the Equal Status Act states: “The Director may dismiss a claim at any stage in the investigation if he or she is of opinion that the claim has been made in bad faith or is frivolous or vexatious or relates to a trivial matter.”

In a decision of the High Court in Patrick Kelly v The Information Commissioner: [2014] IEHC 479: it was stated at paragraph 99:

“As a matter of Irish law, the term “frivolous or vexatious” does not, as noted by Birmingham J. in Nowak, necessarily carry any pejorative connotations but is more concerned with the situation where the litigation (or, in this instance, application) can be described as futile, misconceived or bound to fail. Where a person engages in a pattern of litigation (or applications as in the present instance) which not only come within those descriptions but can be said to be actuated by ill-will or bad faith, such conduct may properly be described as vexatious.”

In another case before the High Court, Flanagan v Kelly (no 1997, no 3832P) Mr Justice O’Sullivan stated that there is satisfactory evidence that “the proceedings are unsustainable in the sense that they must fail. In these circumstances the Court must stay the action.”

It is my view that the complainant has not given any indication that he has any evidence that would link his treatment by the respondent to the grounds of race, or any other, and I conclude, therefore, that his claim has no prospect of success.

I find that the claim comes under the definition of “misconceived” and I dismiss the claim under section 22 of the Equal Status Acts.

Equal Status Act section 22 misconceived