Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Member of the Traveller Community

A Government Department

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00013896-001

11/09/2017

These complaints concern claims of discrimination and harassment by seven complainants Mr. and Ms. A and their 5 children against four named employees of a government department.

The claim form states that the claims relate to ‘the refusal to reimburse for a night in an unanticipated emergency place’ and the claims are taken on the grounds of Race and membership of the Traveller Community.

The complaint form cites the time period of the discrimination as 25th of October 2016.    The claims were received by the WRC on the 11th of September 2017.

The complainants did not attend the hearing and no evidence was adduced at the hearing.

The complainants did not attend the hearing and no evidence was adduced at the hearing.  The respondent requested that the claims be struck out.

A hearing was scheduled in respect of this matter for 22nd of July 2022.  The ES1 forms which notified these claims had named 7 complainants and 4 respondents.   None of these complainants attended the first day of hearing but their representative Ms. Rosen was in attendance.   An issue arose on the first day of hearing regarding the naming of all complainants in the hearing notification which issued, and it was agreed that the matters would be rescheduled for another date and that hearing notifications would name all complainants and respondents as outlined in the complaint forms. 

The complainant’s representative at the first day of hearing submitted that the complaints lodged were being taken against named officials of a Government Department and that these individuals were personally liable and thus named individually as respondents to the within claims.    The Respondent submitted that the Government Department was the employer of these Officials and thus it is the Government Department who is the correct respondent to the claims and not the named officials. 

Both parties submitted written submissions in respect of this matter after the first day of hearing.

I have considered the submissions in the context of Section 42 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 which defines Vicarious Liability as

42.— (1) Anything done by a person in the course of his or her employment shall, in any proceedings brought under this Act, be treated for the purposes of this Act as done also by that person’s employer, whether or not it was done with the employer’s knowledge or approval.

Accordingly, I am satisfied that the names of the Departmental Officials listed as the respondent on the complaint forms is not in accordance with the parameters of the Act.

The named individuals worked for a Government Department and did not provide Goods and Services in their own right. Therefore, the correct respondent to these claims is the Government Department.

I am satisfied that I now have to exercise my discretion and impose the correct name of the Respondent as the Government Department identified at the head of this decision.

I have done this in accordance with section 42(1) of the Act.  This amendment is necessary for precision in the case and in the event of a potential appeal.

The Respondent has been identified as a Government Department and anonymised in accordance with my Decision.

The complainants representative Ms. Rosen at the first hearing requested that the AO recuse herself and stated that she would be making an application in this regard.  Ms. Rosen was advised that it was open to her to make such application and that it would be dealt with.  The application was made by Ms Rosen following the hearing and a reply issued from the Head of Adjudication services on 8th of September 2022.   The reply stated that a decision had been made that the AO would not be recused from these claims.

The second day of hearing was scheduled for 6th of April 2023.

None of the named complainants attended the second day of hearing.  The complainants representative Ms. Rosen attended the hearing but made no application at the hearing other than to reiterate the previous request made by her that the AO recuse herself.   Ms. Rosen was advised by the AO that this request was previously dealt with by the Head of Adjudication services and that the request for recusal had not been granted, a matter notified to Ms. Rosen by letter dated 8th of September 2022.    The AO advised Ms. Rosen that this was the hearing of the claims and the opportunity for the complainants to present their case.   Ms. Rosen again cited her objection to the AO and left the hearing room.    The respondents requested that the claims be struck out. 

As part of my investigation under Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, I am obliged to hold a hearing. I am satisfied that the complainants were notified of the arrangements for the hearing.   I find that there was no evidence adduced in respect of the claims at the scheduled hearing and that any obligation under Section 25 has ceased.    As no evidence was adduced in respect of the claims, I conclude the investigations and find against the complainants.

As no evidence was adduced in respect of the claims, I conclude the investigation and find against the complainants.