ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00040748
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | James Collins | Laurence Staunton |
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-00052978-001 | 26/09/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 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 Jason Collins. The respondent did not attend.
Background:
The complainant submits that he was discriminated against on the grounds of membership of the travelling community when he was refused service by the respondent. The respondent did not attend. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant gave evidence that he is a member of the travelling community and his brother Jason Collins and himself play on a darts team and that his brother does not drink. He said the owner of the bar Mr A refused them entry and said that he did not know the complainant. His brother said this was unfair and they felt shocked and humiliated. He said this happened on 18/07/2022. The complainant said that the person at the respondent’s premises 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. The complainant sent an ES1 form on 22/8/2022 and 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 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:
Travelling community, equal status, licensed premises, discrimination |