Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Elizabeth  Burke

Bus Eireann - Irish Bus

Representatives

Karen Tess Mannix & Co. LLP

 Hugh Hannon CIE Solicitors Office

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00053723-001

15/11/2022

This case concerns an interaction which occurred on a Bus Eireann route from Killarney to Tralee on the 26th of June 2022.  This involved the Complainant, her daughter Annie Burke and the bus driver. The Complainant’s daughter has also brought a case and this is considered in ADJ-00043670. Both matters were heard together in a single hearing.

Both the Complainant and her daughter allege they were discriminated against as a result of being members of the Traveller community.

The Complainant’s solicitor made oral submissions. She clarified that the Complainant’s case did not relate to her husband’s bus pass being retained by the Respondent and that it is focused on the incident on the 26th of June 2022.

The Complainant gave evidence under affirmation.

She got on the bus in Killarney. She tried to scan her pass, but it didn’t scan as it was damaged. She had a replacement pass, so she went to try and scan that but mistakenly took out her husband’s pass instead. She is her husband’s carer so would normally handle his bus pass.

The bus driver immediately took her husband’s bus pass off her and then after she had scanned her replacement pass the bus driver got out of his seat and began giving out to her and her daughter. When they got off the bus, they were told by him that, going forward, they were not allowed on any bus which he was the driver of.

She has still not gotten her husband’s bus pass back despite contacting Bus Eireann numerous times. She believes she was treated this way because she is a Traveller.

Ms Annie Burke gave evidence under affirmation.

Ms Burke outlined that she was going to Tralee with her mother.  Her mother scanned the wrong card which wasn’t valid. The bus driver gave out to her, and she then presented her father’s card by accident. The driver then took that card from the Complainant. Ms Burke then bought a ticket and got on the bus. The bus driver followed her down the aisle and started shouting at her and her mother. She works in Killarney and found this incident embarrassing. The bus driver threatened to throw her off the bus and call the Gardaí.

Ms Burke is clear that she never tried to use her father’s pass to get a companion ticket. She bought her own ticket. She was treated in an unacceptable way because she is a Traveller.

The Respondent made submission and Mr Richard Robinson, the bus driver, gave evidence. Ms Francis McCarthy also gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent, but this related to the Respondent’s retention of the Complainant’s husband’s bus pass, which is not something that was pursued by the Complainant in this case.

Mr Robinson outlined that on the day in question the Complainant came on to the bus with her daughter. She tried to use her husband’s bus pass so that her daughter could get the companion fare. As the bus pass did not belong to her, he was required to take it off her.

The Complainant’s daughter paid for her ticket and went to her seat. She had not taken her tickets, so Mr Robinson called her back to collect her ticket. He was appropriate and respectful at all times. The Complainant’s daughter made a threat to him which was to the effect that he would find out about it when they got to Tralee. Mr Robinson stood up to tell her that he would call the Gardaí if she persisted in that sort of behaviour.

He would never discriminate against a member of the Traveller community and would never even know if someone was a Traveller.  

There are two distinct version of events, outlined in oral evidence by both parties.

Ms Elizabeth Burke and Ms Annie Burke say that the bus driver, Mr Robinson was aggressive and rude to them following an innocent mistake where the Complainant presented her husband’s bus pass before using her own. The believe they were treated this way because they are members of the Traveller community.

Mr Robinson says that that Ms Elizabeth Burke tried to use her husband’s bus pass because it was a companion bus pass and so that her daughter might get a free ticket. Following this Ms Annie Burke made an aggressive remark which he found to the threatening, he stood up to tell her that he would call the Gardaí if she persisted. He was entirely polite and simply performed his duty in retrieving the bus pass.

All three relevant witnesses appeared credible in their conflicting accounts. However, at one specific point Mr Robinson said something which made me question his evidence. He suggested not only would he not discriminate against any member of the Traveller community but that he wouldn’t even be able to distinguish between a member of the Traveller community and any other person using the bus. I asked Mr Robinson to clarify this position, particularly as he is a frontline worker in public transport, working mostly in the South West. He restated that not only would he not discriminate against a member of the Traveller community but that he would not be able to identify such a person. This damaged his credibility as a witness in my view. It is quite common for members of the Traveller community to have a distinct accent. Considering his role, I think he would have been aware of this.

Having accepted the Complainant’s version of events over Mr Robinson’s I must then consider whether this constituted discrimination as prohibited by the Equal Status Acts.

Section 3.(1) outlines that discrimination shall be taken to occur where a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation.

Section 3 (2) (i) goes on to provide a ground of discrimination where one person is a member of the Traveller community and the other is not.

Section 5 (1) provides that a person shall not discriminate in disposing of goods to the public generally or a section of the public or in providing a service, whether the disposal or provision is for consideration or otherwise and whether the service provided can be availed of only by a section of the public.

Section 42 provides that 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 employee’s knowledge or approval.

The Complainant believes that Mr Robinson knew that the Complainant and her daughter are members of the Traveller community and treated them differently to the rest of the passengers. Specifically he was rude, he shouted at the Complainant’s daughter and threatened to ban them from the service.

I am satisfied that this constitutes less favourable treatment in the manner in which the Respondent’s service was provided. I have already outlined my reservations about the accuracy of Mr Robinson’s evidence when he said he could not identify any member of the Traveller community.

In the circumstances I find that the complaint is well founded.

Section 27 provides that I can award redress which may include an order for compensation for the effects of the prohibited conduct concerned.

I note that the Complainant was not the party shouted at, rather her daughter was. I also note that the Complainant was able to travel on the bus and did not get banned from the service. I further note that the Complainant has not asked me to take into account the Respondent withholding her husband’s bus pass for an extended amount of time as a result of this incident.

In the circumstances I believe effects of the discrimination are limited to the upset caused on the day of the incident and compensation of €500 is just and equitable. 

I find the complaint well founded and award the Complainant €500 in compensation.