Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Parent on behalf of her children

Transport Operator

Representatives

  Self

In-house representation

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00059644-001

25/10/2023

Two of the Complainant’s children have a disability.  The Complainant alleges that her children were discriminated against by the Respondent when she was treated in a discriminatory manner by one of its employees.

The Respondent does not dispute the complaint.

The Complainant submits that she was discriminated against by a bus driver when she was boarding a bus with her three children on 26 July 2023.  Two of her children have a lifelong disability as a result of which they have to be in a disabled buggy at all times when travelling.

It was pouring rain on the day in question.  Trying to get home with three children was hard enough but when the Complainant boarded the bus, the bus driver gave her a dirty look. She looked at him in confusion and asked, “is it not okay to get on?”.  His reply was “not really no”.

The Complainant thought that the bus driver was joking but he was serious.  When she asked what the problem was and showed the driver her travel card which she has as she is a carer, he didn’t even scan it.  The driver just kept shouting at her to “get on if you’re going” as if he was doing her a favour.  This was despite the fact that she stood in the lashing rain with her three children and let everyone else board first to ensure that they were the last on so that they were not taking up extra space.  The disabled space and the buggy space were both free so there was no issue.

The Complainant emailed the Respondent on the day of the incident.  She was told that it had identified the driver in question and the incident was being investigated.

The Complaint also sent the Respondent a notice of complaint form by registered post on 22 September 2023, but she did not receive a response.

The Complainant submits that as a result of one driver’s attitude and behaviour towards her as a mother of young children, she had not travelled on public transport since the incident as it had caused her stress, anxiety and embarrassment.

The Respondent operates in a service industry, and in a highly competitive market. Indeed, in order to succeed in this type of market, the Respondent (and its employees) are fully committed to a vision to be the ‘most customer centred and sustainable transport companies in Ireland’ with ‘customer first’ listed as one of the key values of the organisation. In all customer engagement – either in person, by phone or electronically – the Respondent continually seeks to demonstrate its commitment to creating and maintaining an environment where everyone is treated equally and where differences are welcomed and embraced.

The Complainant maintains that she was discriminated against by one of its drivers, stating that he was initially reluctant to let herself and her children board the service, though they did travel that day, but he spoke to the Complainant in a way that the Respondent acknowledges was unacceptable and does not dispute.

Incidents in question  

The Complainant went to board a bus as she has done previously without incident.  Even though it was raining heavily the Complainant, who was travelling with her three children, two of whom were in a double buggy, kindly allowed other passengers to board before attempting to board the service.  The Complainant alleges that when she stepped on board the service the driver gave her a look that, which prompted her to ask, “was it not okay to get on with the double buggy” and that “his exact reply was 'not really, no' “.

The Complainant states that she at first thought this was a joke, but that it was clearly not, and that the driver was serious in his reply.  The manner of this exchange, and the fact that the driver seemed serious, upset the Complainant, particularly as it happened in front of her toddler. 

The Complainant states that two of her children must stay in their buggy due to their medical condition.  The Complainant confirmed that she did complete the journey on that occasion and that she has often used the assigned buggy space without any issues. 

Complaint (investigation & correspondence) 

The Complainant contacted the Respondent by telephone on 26 July 2023 and a case number was created.  As part of the correspondence for this case, a customer care staff member wrote to the Complainant as follows:

“The behaviour you have described is totally unacceptable and I can assure you that this type of behaviour is most certainly not tolerated or condoned under any circumstances, and I deeply regret that you had this experience.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. Once again, I regret the upset this caused for you.”

As also advised in correspondence from Customer Care to the Complainant, the driver was identified and interviewed by local management regarding this incident. 

The Respondent expects all its staff to provide the very best service to customers and to be considerate at all times to their passengers’ needs, especially so to customers with additional needs or accessibility requirements.  While undertaking the investigation, it was clear that the driver in question’s behavioural characteristics were not in keeping with the Respondent’s ethos or the level of professionalism expected as a public service employee.

While taking part the Respondent’s in-house disciplinary procedures, the driver departed the Respondent company in early September 2023.  The Respondent accepts that the Complainant should have been given an update on this case and apologises for this oversight. 

Conclusion  

Firstly, the Respondent would like to apologise for the lack of communication with the Complainant, due to some administrative and sick leave issues. However, this does not excuse the error and the Respondent fully appreciates how frustrating this was for the Complainant and sincerely apologises for any additional upset caused to the Complainant.  

The Respondent sincerely and unreservedly apologises for the experience that the Complainant and her children had when they travelled on its service and encountered the particular driver.  The Respondent wishes to reiterate that the Complainant’s experience and the driver’s behaviour is not in keeping with the Respondent’s values and training; it is not the conduct the Respondent expects from its staff and does not represent the standard of service that the Respondent’s customers have rightly come to expect from the Respondent and its frontline staff.  As such, the Respondent again acknowledges that the incident is totally unacceptable and appreciates the upset and embarrassment it has caused.

As stated above, following the investigation of this incident and the undertaking of internal procedures, the driver in question is no longer employed by the Respondent.  Whilst the Respondent appreciates that this of little consolation on this occasion and does not lessen the impact felt by the Complainant and her children, it does hope that the fact it investigated swiftly does signal how seriously it took this incident and its continued commitment to delivering customer service of the highest calibre and being considerate of all its customers with additional or accessibility needs. 

The Respondent strongly believes in the importance of purposeful and structured collaboration with people with disabilities and associated organisations, so that that it can better understand their additional needs, and how it can best address the operational challenges that different additional needs may present to service users.  For that reason, the Respondent actively engages with accessibility organisations and customers. 

The Respondent’s Accessibility Manager who was only recently appointed at the time of the incident, would like to take to offer to meet with the Complainant and travel with her and her children at a time of her convenience, so that the Respondent can better understand what it is doing right as a service provider and what challenges it needs to address to ensure customers such as the Complainant and her children receive the high quality customer experience that they rightly expect from the Respondent.   

As part of the Respondent’s NTA funded Travel Assistance Scheme that trains service users with additional needs to travel independently on its services, the Respondent also engages with a variety of local organisations that provide support for people with disabilities.  This provides an opportunity for feedback and collaboration between the Respondent and different organisations that cover a broad variety of additional needs.  With this in mind, the Respondent would also like to extend an invitation for the Complainant to meet with its Accessibility Manager and his Travel Assistance team to help them better understand how the Respondent can engage and train members of the visually impaired community and their carers, such as the Complainant, within the scope of the Travel Assistance scheme, as those acting as carers to young children are currently a demographic that is underrepresented within the Respondent’s service users.

Regardless of whether the Complainant wishes to accept either of the invitations outlined above, the Respondent hopes that the Complainant and her children continue to use its services.  The Respondent does not dispute that the Complainant’s children are required to stay in their buggy and trust that she has had no further issues.  The Respondent wishes to reiterate that the Complainant, her children and their buggy are more than welcome on board its services.  The Respondent would also be happy to help the Complainant with any queries should she require it in the future and the Accessibility Manager is happy to provide his personal contact details should the Complainant like them for her personal use.

While this incident was unacceptable and highly regrettable, the Respondent notes that the Complainant was able to travel on the service, though it appreciates that the driver’s unacceptable behaviour negatively impacted on her experience of travelling.  This behaviour was addressed internally through agreed in-house procedures, and the Respondent wishes to reiterate that the driver no longer works for the Respondent and that such behaviours are not and will not be tolerated.  The Respondent sincerely apologises and regrets the upset and embarrassment caused.  The Respondent would never want any of its customers to feel that way, especially children, so would welcome the opportunity to talk to the Complainant to see how best it can start to rebuild her trust in the Respondent.  

The issue for determination in this complaint is whether the Respondent discriminated against the Complainant on the disability ground contrary to Sections 3 and 4 and 5 of the Equal Status Act 2000 (as amended) (the Act), in relation to the provision of a service. 

I find that the Respondent is a service provider within the definition of the Act.  There was no dispute that the children of the Complainant suffered from a disability. There was also no dispute that the incident in question took place. In the circumstances, therefore, I find that discrimination on the grounds of disability occurred.

I find, pursuant to section 25(4) of the Acts, that the Complainant was discriminated against on the disability ground pursuant to section 5(1) and in terms of section 4(1) of that Act.

Under section 27(1) of that Act, I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation of €5,000.

I would also encourage the Complainant, when she feels able, to avail of the offers of assistance and support made by the Respondent at the adjudication hearing.

Disability discrimination