Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Dominick  Hewitt

Clondalkin Travellers Training Enterprise And Employment Development Co. Ltd

Representatives

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00056804-001

22/05/2023

This hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that the proceedings constitute the administration of Justice. It was therefore open to members of the public to attend this hearing.

The Specific Details of the Dispute are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 22nd of May 2023.

In line with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 which came into effecton the 29th of July 2021 and where there is the potential for a serious and direct conflict in the evidence between the parties to a complaint, it is open to me to require that all parties giving oral evidence before me, would swear an oath or make an affirmation as may be appropriate. In the interests of progressing this matter, I confirm that I have in the circumstances administered the said Affirmation as appropriate. It is noted that the giving of false statements or evidence is an offence.

The Complainant was not represented and made his own case. The Complainant made an Affirmation as appropriate. The Complainant relied on the narrative as outlined in his workplace relations complaint form.  The Complainant had additionally previously submitted documents upon which he sought to rely.

The Complainant alleges that he was discriminated against when he was not allowed to partake in Coppersmith classes while engaged with the Respondent under a CE scheme.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. 

The Respondent did not attend. I am satisfied that the Respondent was notified of the date, time and venue for this hearing by a letter sent from the WRC - dated the 16th of August 2023 - and emailed to the email address provided by the Respondent. The Respondent had specifically agreed to communication by electronic means in the course of correspondence.

The Respondent company continues to have a normal status as of the issuing of this decision. The registered office is:

Office Block 1, Clondalkin Enterprise Centre, Neilstown Road, Clondalkin Road.

This company appears to include trading under the style and title of Clondalkin Travellers Development Group and operates from the same Enterprise Centre.

The place of work was St. Oliver’s Training Centre in Cloverhill.

I have carefully listened to and considered the argument being made by the Complainant herein. Whilst the Respondent did not attend in person, the Respondent had made it’s representations known by way of a letter received on the 19th of June 2023.

The Complainant was engaged under a Contract of Employment with the Clondalkin Travellers Training EE Co. Ltd in February of 2018. As I understand it, the Complainant was engaged under a CE Scheme which allows persons on specified social welfare payments to take up community-based placements. The aim is to provide a pathway into training, upskilling and a return to fulltime employment.

Clearly being a member of the Traveller Community was not a pre-requisite to being placed in the Clondalkin Travellers Training entity, as the Complainant appears to have worked under the CE programme from 2017 to 2023. The Complainant took on various roles over the years including working in the bicycle workshop.

In November of 2022 the Complainant became aware of the fact that a well-regarded Coppersmith was being invited into the Education and Training Centre to give a series of once-a-week classes in the art of creation and welding in copper. The Complainant asked to partake and was advised that these classes were only open to members of the Travellers Community.

The Complainant was upset at what he perceived to be reverse discrimination which disallowed him from attending these metalwork classes on the basis of his non-membership of the Travelling Community.

Another course in copper smithing was commenced in March of 2023 and the Complainant was again denied access.

The Complainant gave evidence to the effect that over the years working under the CE scheme he has worked alongside many Members of the Traveller Community and that no distinction had ever been made. He felt that this refusal to allow him to partake in the class, was an arbitrary decision. He said that many of the participants (themselves members of the Traveller community) had expressly stated that they wished he could join the class as there was so much to be gained from it.

It was in these circumstances that the Complainant issued a Workplace Relations Complaint Form on the 22nd of May 2023 (citing discrimination in the giving of training) under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2011.

The Respondent provided a response (in a letter dated the 19th of June 2023) by way of a rebuttal to the claim made. In this letter a Ms. Smartt indicated that the funding for this programme/class had come from the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth and had been specifically ear-marked for the Traveller Community. This is therefore entirely separate to the CE Scheme funding which comes from the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection. It is intended to benefit a particular socio grouping.

The Respondent is making the case that it is not possible for the Complainant to join this particular training/education class as he does not qualify. In effect the Respondent has set out a case for positive discrimination which allows for bona fide actions to be taken which favour (without the proper consideration of merit) under-represented individuals from minority groups. This recognises the possession of the protected characteristic - that of being a member of the Traveller Community.

I understand perfectly why the Complainant was disappointed not to be allowed to join the metal class that was of interest to him. Certainly, his argument that if the facts were reversed, and a member of the travelling community was denied access to a class open to everyone, concerns could legitimately be raised. However, this is not what has happened here. The Complainant is instead asking me to move beyond that which is intended under the Employment Equality Acts. The Complainant is not now, nor has he ever been, a member of the Traveller Community. He is therefore not entitled to the protections laid down in the Employment Equality (and the Equal Status) Acts which seek to protect persons of that community from very real prejudices and biases. The Complainant feels wronged, but has not made out a case of discrimination.

The Complainant agrees that he is not a member of the Travelling Community and therefore must, it follows, be aware that he has not made out a Prima facie case of discrimination under the relevant legislation.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00056804-001 – The Complainant was not discriminated against, and the complaint herein fails. The Complainant did not establish a Prima Facie case.