EDA2459

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00039756 (CA-00049793-002)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the decision of the WRC Adjudication Officer under Section 83 (1), Employment Equality Acts, 1998 to 2015 on 17 November 2023. A Labour Court hearing took place on 31 October 2024.

The following is the Decision of the Court:

DETERMINATION:

Introduction

This is an appeal by Kieff Bosse against decision ADJ-00037872- CA00049042--005 of an Adjudication Officer in his complaints against his then employer Hendrick Hotel. The complaints were made pursuant to a contravention of the Employment Equality Act 1998 (the Act). In line with the normal practice of the Court, the parties are referred to in this Determination as they were at first instance. Hence, Kieff Bosse is referred to as the Complainant and Hendrick Hotel is referred to as the Respondent.

This claim was lodged with the WRC on the 21st April 2022. The cognisable period for the purpose of the Act is 22nd October 2021 to the 21st April 2022. There are two linked claims as follows:  WTC/23/90 and UD/23/167.

 Summary of Complainants submission and evidence

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent from the 22nd May 2019 to the 5th April 2022 as a senior bar person. The Complainant submits he was discriminated against on the grounds of race. On his compliant form he stated “I have been treated less favourably due to an incident that happened on the 12/11/2021 when I asked for camera footage for months, but it was refused. NW who made a complaint about me was allowed to view this CCTV footage”.

The Complainant stated that he is of black French ethnicity and identified his comparators as POK who is Irish and JL who is Polish.  In respect of the alleged act of discrimination, it was his evidence that on 14th February 2022 himself and POK were working the late shift, POK had a problem with his leg and was sitting on the sofa. There was no manager on the shift only a supervisor. He was telling POK to get up and help him when POK took his bag and left. The next day JL told him he had been suspended because of what he had done to POK. There was also an incident on the 12th November 2021 and the Respondent would not give him the CCTV footage. The Complainant submitted that these were the acts of discrimination that he was relying on.

In respect of the link between these incidents and his race he stated that he was treated differently because of his race.

Summary of Respondents submission

The Respondent disputes that the Complainant was discriminated against on the grounds of race and submitted that the Complainant had not established a prima facie case of discrimination and therefore his complaint had to fail.

The incident of the 12th November 2021 he refers to was a complaint made against him, but CCTV footage was not relevant to the complaint and that was why he was not provided with it.  This refusal was not in any way related to his race. There was a later complaint where CCTV footage was relevant, and the Complainant was afforded an opportunity to review the footage with a representative present, but he declined to do so. The Complainant has not identified how either of these issues are linked to his race.

Discussion

The Complainant has failed to identify how either of the incidents identified by him are linked to his race. The mere fact that the people he was engaging with were of different race to him is not sufficient to meet the prima facia requirement.

As the Complainant has failed to establish a Prima facia case his complaint must fail.

 The appeal fails the decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld

 The Court so determines.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
CC	______________________
26th November 2024	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.