ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00040742
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Jason Collins | Laurence Staunton The Punch Bowl |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00052976-001 | 26/09/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 13/03/2022 & 29/05/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
The hearing was heard remotely pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
Parties were advised that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 that the hearing would be held in public, and that this decision would not be anonymised and there was no objection to same. Parties were also advised that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence under oath or affirmation and reminded that cross examination is permitted. Any submissions received were exchanged. The complainant gave evidence under oath as did his witness James Collins. The respondent did not attend.
Background:
The complainant submitted that he was discriminated against and refused service on the grounds of his membership of the travelling community. The respondent did not attend.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant gave evidence that he is a member of the travelling community and went to play darts at the respondent’s premises with his brother James Collins on 18/07/2022 and was told by a person there Mr A, who identified himself as the owner, that the pub was only for locals. The complainant said he had been there before, and Mr A said he did not know who the complainant was and that the premises was only for locals. The complainant said that Mr A would have known that he was a member of the travelling community by his look and his voice. The complainant said there were others in the pub and sent an ES1 form on 22/8/2022. The complaint was received by the WRC on 26/09/2022.
In response to a question from the Adjudicator the complainant confirmed that it was a licensed premises. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend the hearing and did not provide any reason for their failure to attend. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The hearing had been scheduled for 13/3/2023 but was rescheduled as it was unclear if the respondent was on proper notice of the hearing. I note that the respondent did not attend the additional hearing scheduled for 29/05/2023 and I am satisfied that the respondent was on proper notice of that hearing.
The complainant’s evidence uncontested was very credible that he was refused service when he went to play darts in the pub. I note that the Respondent is a licenced premises within the meaning of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003. Under Section 19(2) of that Act it provides that “A person who claims that prohibited conduct has been directed against him or her on, or at the point of entry to, licensed premises may apply to the District Court for redress.” Section 19(11)(a) states that “The (Equal Status) Act of 2000 shall cease to apply in relation to prohibited conduct occurring on, or at the point of entry to, licensed premises on or after the commencement of this section.”
Taking the aforementioned into consideration, I find I do not have jurisdiction to make a determination as the complaint relates to a licensed premises. |
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.
Taking the aforementioned into consideration, I find do not have jurisdiction to make a determination as the complaint relates to a licensed premises. |
Dated: 08 August 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Key Words:
Equal status, discrimination, travelling community, licensed premises |