ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00026882
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Parent | A Primary School |
Representatives |
| Paul McDonald AJP McDonald Solicitors |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00034078-001 | 30/01/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 16/04/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patricia Owens
Procedure:
On 30 January 2020 the complainant referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to Section 21 of the Equal Status Act, 2000.
Following referral of the matter to me by the Director General, I gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence they deemed relevant. The complaint was scheduled for hearing on 16 April 2021 and both parties attended that hearing and gave evidence.
At hearing the complainant confirmed that this complainant was a duplicate of his complaint of gender discrimination as set out in ADJ 00024762 and he undertook to withdraw this complaint. In the context that no withdrawal was received by the Workplace Relations Commission I confirm that there is no additional case to be considered and my findings in relation to ADJ 00024762 are my findings in relation to this complaint.
The finalisation of this decision was delayed due to medical issues arising from Covid 19.
Preliminary Matters:
Issue 1
The respondent requested that this matter be held in private and that the decision to be anonymised, in the context that it did not wish for information relating to a minor child to be in the public domain and on the basis that the minor child would be identifiable by naming the parties, together with the details of the case. The complainant confirmed that he had no objection to the matter being held in private. On the day in question, no member of the public sought to attend the hearing and so the matter of the publication of the decision remained to be considered by the Adjudication Officer.
Issue 2
The respondent advised that the complainant had named the former Principal of the school, together with the school as co-respondents in the case. The respondent requested that this be amended to name only the school as respondent in the case and confirmed the correct name of the respondent. The respondent confirmed that it had no objection to the Adjudication Officer amending the respondent’s name accordingly and the complainant also confirmed that he was satisfied to amend the name.
Issue 3
The respondent submitted that the complainant had not properly complied with their obligations to notify the respondent of his intention to take a case under the act, in relation to his provision of the ES1 and ES2 forms.
The respondent noted that the above forms were sent twice, initially on 7 October 2019 and later on 12 December 2019. The respondent pointed out that the first form received was dated 7 October 2015. While accepting that this was an error and should have read 7 October 2019 drew attention to the fact that this complaint only referred to discrimination of the prohibited ground of gender and referenced specifically to the matter of his child’s enrolment in the school, which occurred on 6 March 2015. The respondent submitted that this complaint did not meet the requirements of the act, which requires that a respondent is notified within 2 months of the alleged occurrence. In this context, the respondent submitted that the complaint was out of time.
The respondent noted that a second ES1/ES2 form was emailed to the respondent on 12 December 2019 and that this form contained the additional complaint of discrimination on the prohibited grounds of civil status and family status. The respondent submitted that these two prohibited grounds were only included after the publication of details in national newspapers of findings in another case heard by the WRC. The respondent submitted that the submission of the second form was an abuse of process, that the complaint form relates only to the initial enrolment and that it was submitted to try to “get over” the time limit issue. The respondent submitted that anything that occurred prior to the submission of the first form should have been contained in that form.
In the context that this was not the original form submitted and in the context of time limits, the respondent submitted that the Adjudication Officer did not have jurisdiction to hear the case.
Background:
The respondent is a recognised primary school within the meaning of the Education Act 1998. The complainant’s daughter was enrolled in the respondent’s school in 2015 by her mother, who is her joint legal guardian. The complainant, who is the other joint legal guardian informed the school prior to the commencement of that school year, in March 2015 that he did not consent to her enrolment at the school.
The complainant claimed that the respondent’s actions in enrolling his daughter without his consent and the respondents continuing to do so each year since, amounts to discrimination against him on the prohibited grounds of gender and family status, contrary to the Equal Status Acts. In his complainant form the complainant confirmed that the first date of discrimination was 6 March 2015 and the most recent date of discrimination was 22 January 2020. He contended that the discrimination took the form of ignoring his wishes not to enrol his daughter in the school and failing to include him in matters relating to his daughters’ on-going participation in the school and associated activities.
The respondent disputed the claim of discrimination, claimed the complaints were out of time (as per Issue 3 above), and contended that the it understood that the question of enrolment had been resolved between the child’s parents in 2015 and that it acted upon the written instructions provided by the child’s mother and in accordance with it’s admissions policy. The respondent contended that it is normal practice to accept applications for places at the school made by one parent/guardian. In addition, the respondent contended that the specific issues raised by the complainant as having occurred since the date of enrolment, while they might demonstrate challenges with the relationship between the complainant and the school, did not constitute discrimination under the act.
The complainant attended and was unrepresented at the hearing.
Mr. A, former school Principal, Mr. B, Principal and Mr. C, Chairman of the Board of management attended on behalf of the respondent. The respondent was represented at the hearing by Mr. P McDonald, Solicitor.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
At hearing the complainant confirmed that this complainant was a duplicate of his complaint of gender discrimination as set out in ADJ 00024762 and he undertook to withdraw this complaint. In the context that no withdrawal was received by the Workplace Relations Commission I confirm that there is no additional case to be considered and my findings in relation to ADJ 00024762 are my findings in relation to this complaint.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
At hearing the complainant confirmed that this complainant was a duplicate of his complaint of gender discrimination as set out in ADJ 00024762 and he undertook to withdraw this complaint. In the context that no withdrawal was received by the Workplace Relations Commission I confirm that there is no additional case to be considered and my findings in relation to ADJ 00024762 are my findings in relation to this complaint.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
At hearing the complainant confirmed that this complainant was a duplicate of his complaint of gender discrimination as set out in ADJ 00024762 and he undertook to withdraw this complaint. In the context that no withdrawal was received by the Workplace Relations Commission I confirm that there is no additional case to be considered and my findings in relation to ADJ 00024762 are my findings in relation to this complaint.
However, as my findings in relation to Preliminary Issues 1 & 2 have a bearing on the publication of this decision I have set them out below for ease of reference.
Preliminary Matters:
Issue 1
The respondent had sought that the matter be held in private and that an anonymised decision be issued consequent to the hearing. The complainant did not object to this course of action. Taking into account the protection of the minor child at the heart of this case it seemed reasonable to me that this should remain a private matter and in that context, I have exercised my discretion to anonymise this decision.
Issue 2
The respondent had sought that the former principals’ name be removed as a respondent in the case and had highlighted the correct name of the respondent. The complainant accepted this amendment. I have reflected the changes requested in the record of the complaint, whilst also anonymising the published version of the decision.
|
Decision:
Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act.
CA-00034078-001:
At hearing the complainant confirmed that this complainant was a duplicate of his complaint of gender discrimination as set out in ADJ 00024762 and he undertook to withdraw this complaint. In the context that no withdrawal was received by the Workplace Relations Commission I confirm that there is no additional case to be considered and my findings in relation to ADJ 00024762 are my findings in relation to this complaint.
|
Dated: 17-08-2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patricia Owens
Key Words:
|