Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Roberto  Alamazani

Chief State Solicitor’s Office

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-00028014-001

28/04/2019

The complainant states that he has been discriminated against by a person, organisation, company who provides goods, services or facilities. Specifically, he brings a complaint against an employee of the Chief State’s Solicitor’s Office. He states that:

“I am offended that I was victim of unfair treatment and you viciously shouting at the High Court because I was trying to tell you that I was going downstairs to have a cup of tea. You racially discriminated this way because of colour of my skin, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins. 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 respondent in a letter to the WRC dated 4 June 2019 stated: “as this Office does not provide a service or facility which is available to the public there is no right of complaint under the Equal Status Act against this Office.” and asked for the complaint to be dismissed.

The complainant relies upon the Equal Status Acts 2000-2015 to ground his complaint against the Adjudicator who the complainant states is a person, organisation, company who provides goods, services or facilities and that when providing that service he was discriminated on the ground of race.

Section 2 of the Equal Status Act 2000 as amended defines a service as:

“ service” means a service or facility of any nature which is available to the public generally or a section of the public, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, includes—

( a) access to and the use of any place,

( b) facilities for—

(i) banking, insurance, grants, loans, credit or financing,

(ii) entertainment, recreation or refreshment,

(iii) cultural activities, or

(iv) transport or travel,

( c) a service or facility provided by a club (whether or not it is a club holding a certificate of registration under the Registration of Clubs Acts, 1904 to 1999) which is available to the public generally or a section of the public, whether on payment or without payment, and

( d) a professional or trade service,

but does not include pension rights (within the meaning of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 ) or a service or facility in relation to which that Act applies;

Section 14 of the Equal Status Act 2000 as amended states that:

Certain measures or activities not prohibited.

14.—(1) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting—

( a) the taking of any action that is required by or under—

(i)                  any enactment or order of a court

Judy Walsh in the Equal Status Acts 2000-2011, 2012 edition, Blackhall Publishing, at page 43 states:

“Equivalent UK provisions have been subject to fairly extensive interpretation (McColgan, 2005, pp 255-285; Monaghan, 2007, pp 505-508). In a number of cases UK courts concluded that ‘services’ were confined to acts of similar kind to acts that might be carried out by a private person. Therefore, functions that are of a public law nature (i.e. enforcement, regulatory and control functions) have fallen outside the scope of that country’s non-discrimination legislation.”

The Chief State Solicitor's Office (CSSO) provides litigation, advisory and conveyancing services to Government Departments and Offices and to certain other State agencies. The CSSO also provides solicitor services at Tribunals and Commissions of Inquiry and represents Ireland at the Court of Justice of the European Union. Clearly it does not provide a service “which is available to the public generally or a section of the public”.

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.”

I conclude that the respondent does not provide a service which could be provided “to the public generally or a section of the public” and based on this I conclude this claim is misconceived as it is incorrectly based in law. I find that I have no jurisdiction to investigate the above complaints.

Section 22 of the Equal Status Act 2000 as amended states:

22. — (1) The  Director of the Workplace Relations Commission  may dismiss a claim at any stage if of opinion that it has been made in bad faith or is frivolous, vexatious or misconceived or relates to a trivial matter.

As I have formed the opinion that the claim is misconceived pursuant to section 22 I dismiss the claim.

As I have formed the opinion that the claim is misconceived pursuant to section 22 I dismiss the claim.