Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Margaret  Green

Centra Blackrock

Representatives

Rory O'Carroll, Exchange House Ireland, National Travellers Service

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00035424-001

25/03/2020

The complainant alleges that she has been discriminated against on grounds of her membership of the Travelling Community. She states that on 10 February 2020, she entered the respondent shop to purchase a packet of firelighters. She submits that a male staff member whom she thinks was the manager followed her down the aisle of the shop and when she reached for the pack of firelighters, she was told by the staff member to “Get out, I am not serving you”. The complainant states that when she asked what did she do wrong, the staff member responded saying “You don’t have to do anything wrong, just get out.” The complainant states that she asked him for his name and to call the Gardai. The complainant states that he refused both of her requests and subsequently exited the shop. The complainant stated that she felt she was treated less favourably than others because she is a Traveller.

The complainant asserts that there were 8-10 persons in the shop at this time and that she was the only person asked to leave the shop and refused service. The complainant states that she found the experience deeply distressing and felt embarrassed and humiliated. She states that she left the shop in tears. The complainant states that she is a settled Traveller and proud to be one and finds it very upsetting to be treated like dirt in this day and age. The complainant states that she has spoken to many of her neighbours who are also members of the Travelling Community and they also report that they have been refused service at the shop and been barred from the premises for no apparent reason other than being a Traveller.

The complainant’s daughter gave testimony to state she was barred from the shop also and that she has a 10 year old son who was shouted at by the Director of the respondent shop to “Get out” all due to the fact that they are members of the Travelling Community.

The complainant’s representative also stated that about a year ago he was with the complainant assisting her and she asked him would he go into the respondent shop to get her a pack of cigarettes and he was surprised and asked her could she not go in herself and she responded that she would not be served.

The Director of the respondent shop states that he met the complainant in the shop and spoke to her discreetly at the rear of the shop and requested her to leave as he could not serve her. The respondent states that the complainant asked why and he explained and that she knew why. The Director stated that he never told the complainant to “Get out”. He stated that he has been in business since 1973 and would never treat anyone in the manner alleged by the complainant. He states that he has the utmost respect for all members of the public.

When questioned, the Director stated that the complainant was begging from customers four doors down outside another premises and that he had made an arrangement with her 8/9 years ago that if she stopped begging, she would be served in the shop but that the complainant never honoured that agreement.

Having carefully considered the evidence in the within claim, I find that the complainant has established a prima facie case of discrimination on grounds of Membership of the Travelling Community in relation to being denied service at the respondent shop.

I find the complainant’s evidence to be cogent and compelling. I also find the testimony of her daughter and her representative who gave an account of his experience very persuasive. I found the evidence of the respondent to be inconsistent and lacking in credibility. I note the testimony of the complainant that there was no purported arrangement in place from 8/9 years ago that if she ceased begging at the premises four doors down, she would be served in the shop. The respondent has not discharged the burden of proof and in the circumstances, I find in favour of the complainant. I am also cognisant having heard the evidence of the various witnesses for the complainant of the intergenerational discrimination herein and the effects this treatment has had on the complainant and her family.

Having carefully considered the evidence in the within claim, I find that the complainant has established a prima facie case of discrimination on grounds of Membership of the Travelling Community in relation to being denied service at the respondent shop.  The respondent has not rebutted said case.

I order the respondent to pay the complainant €7000 in respect of the discriminatory treatment and the effects it has had on the complainant.

I also order that the respondent undertakes to carry out training for its staff in respect of the provisions of the Equal Status Acts.

Membership of the Travelling Community, Equal Status Acts