Complainant

Respondent

Parties

David  O'Gorman

Tarbert Island Maritime Club

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

  Paddy Creedon

 Damien McGibney

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00052915-001

20/09/2022

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The complainant and a witness for the respondent gave their evidence under affirmation.

The complainant submitted that he was refused access to club membership on the basis of his family name. He submitted that he made an application that was unsuccessful under the rules of the club. He sought a copy of the rule book but never received one despite repeated requests.

The complainant stated that he was refused membership because of his name stated that he was given a lame excuse that is application was deemed unsuccessful. He stated that all he wants is to clear his name. He was told by a friend that he would sign the proposal papers. The complainant stated that his application forms were continually being misplaced and that this was unfair.

The respondent submitted that the complainant’s application to join the club was unsuccessful as it did not contain the signature of a sponsor.

The witness for the respondent stated that the complainant was not provided with a copy of the rule book because the rule book was for members only and he was never properly proposed as a member. The witness clarified that the complainant was never proposed by a full, paid-up member of the club and this was why he was refused entry.

The complainant stated that he was discriminated against on the basis of his family name. The Adjudicator outlined the grounds contained in the Equal Status Act and noted that family name did not appear to fall within one of those grounds. The complainant was asked to indicate which ground the complaint was being taken under but simply indicated that he was discriminated against and wanted equal status.

The grounds outlined in the Act are Gender, Civil Status, Family Status, Sexual Orientation, Religion, Age, Disability, Race, Membership of the Traveller Community, Victimisation and the Housing Assistance grounds.

The Equal Status Act outlines the burden of proof in Section 38A which states as follows

38A.—(1) Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a person from which it may be presumed that prohibited conduct has occurred in relation to him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.

(2) This section is without prejudice to any other enactment or rule of law in relation to the burden of proof in any proceedings which may be more favourable to the person.

(3) Where, in any proceedings arising from a reference of a matter by the Authority to the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission under section 23(1), facts are established by or on behalf of the Authority from which it may be presumed that prohibited conduct or a contravention mentioned in that provision has occurred, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.

Having regard to the suggestion that the complainant was not provided with a copy of the rule book under which he was refused access to the club, the respondent confirmed that it did not provide the complainant with a copy of the rule book.  Although not linked to any ground under the Act, it does come across as grossly unfair.

Having regard to the evidence put forward by the complainant, I am not satisfied that he has connected the treatment he received with any of the grounds outlined in the Act.  Although he may have been treated in an unfair manner, and it was never suggested that the treatment he received was not unfair, I find that the complaint has not established fasts from which it may be presumed that prohibited conduct, as outlined in the Act, has occurred in relation to him. I therefore find that the respondent did not engage in prohibited conduct.

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the respondent did not engage in prohibited conduct.

Equal Status Act – no connect ground – unfair treatment – no prohibited conduct