Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Child

Rolestown House Hotel Limited Kettle's Country House Hotel

Complainant

Respondent

 Parties

Child

Rolestown House Hotel Limited

Representatives

Sinead Lucey Free Legal Advice Centres (FLAC)

Karl Howe HBMO Solicitors LLP Neal Flynn BL

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00050694-001

18/05/2022

The parents made a communion booking with the hotel by phone on the 2nd of February 2022. The lunch was booked for the 7th of May 2022. It is alleged by the parents that when Ms. Collins the child’s mother went to the Hotel to pay a deposit they were recognised and identified as being members of the Travelling community and later that day their booking was cancelled.  The Respondent deny that in fact a booking had been accepted and the reason why they cancelation occurred related to the fact that the area sought, had already been booked.

On the 1st of February 2022 the Complainant’s mother phoned the Hotel to enquire about availability. She was informed that to make a booking she needed to talk to Ms Patrice Dorney Manager.

On the 2nd of February Ms Collins phoned Ms Dorney, who it is alleged confirmed that there was availability and that a booking deposit was required to secure it. Subsequently Ms Collins attended at the Hotel to pay a deposit and received a receipt from the receptionist for her €50 booking deposit.

Shortly afterwards Ms Collins received a call from the receptionist to say they couldn’t honour the booking as they were fully booked.

The child’s father Mr Collins attended at the hotel following the call soon after to speak to a manager who was Mr Joseph Kettle. The Manager spoke to Mr Collins and explained that the hotel was booked up and that accepting the booking deposit was a mistake.

Ms Collins was readily recognised as being a member of the travelling community. Ms Dorney the initial manager, who stated that a table was available, is the Wedding and Events Co-ordinator. It is not credible that she made a mistake.

Information was subsequently sought from the Hotel regarding phone calls, CCTV relevant to the first attendance at the Hotel on the 2nd of February 2022 and the booking records. This information was only partially provided.

The Respondent argued that this dispute arose because of miscommunication. There was no discrimination. The Collins family were told that the area they wished to book in fact had already been booked and had been booked prior to their booking receipt being issued. A receptionist issued a receipt based on what was said to her by Mrs Collins, it was a genuine mistake. The Hotel subject to a valid legal request was willing to share information and was mindful of its data protection obligations and ensured relevant information was kept if required at a hearing.

The two key witnesses for the Respondent did not attend.

The Respondent did call two other witnesses Ms Casey who works in the Hotel Office and Mr Colin Kettle, also a manager at the Hotel to explain how a mistake could occur and how the booking system worked. And Ms Sonya Casey.

Ms Sonya Casey’s evidence was very credible who works in the office at the Hotel and confirmed that at no time during the conversations about this booking did Ms Dorney or Mr Joseph Kettle refer to the Collins as travellers. This evidence is in stark contrast to what Mr Collins stated about what he overheard.

Mr Kettle’s evidence about the record system does show another booking for the area in question made on the 16th of January 2022.

Mr Kettle also gave evidence that it is common occurrence for the Hotel to take bookings from all groups and that includes members of the travelling community.

The Act requires that the Complainant establish a prima facie case that raises an inference of discrimination.

There two competing explanations for what occurred. Ms Dorney was relatively new to the Hotel and simply made a mistake and the other explanation was that the table was available, and the booking cancelled because Ms Collins was recognised to be a Traveller. The evidence does not support that proposition as the area had been booked by another party in mid-January 2022.

The fact that the table was booked and this tribunal’s preference for Ms Casey’s evidence that at no time did any employee refer to the Collins as travellers; although, Mr Collins stated he overheard such a comment, leads this tribunal to conclude that no prima facie case has been established that could give rise to an inference of discrimination.

I am mindful of the fact that two key witnesses did not attend at this hearing; however, the tribunal must base its decision on the facts presented and those facts do not raise the inference of discrimination.

Solicitor for the Complainant also argued that the failure to provide information must give rise to a negative inference. That is countered by the Respondent retaining the relevant records subject to a lawful request to provide those records by order or at a hearing so that data protection obligations were complied with. The records produced at the hearing are sworn to be true and accurate. On that basis sworn oral evidence must be accepted as no contrary evidence to question their veracity was provided.

As no prima facie case has been established, I determine that the Hotel did not engage in prohibited conduct.

There are two competing explanations for what occurred. Ms Dorney was relatively new to the Hotel and simply made a mistake and the other explanation was that the table was available, and the booking cancelled because Ms Collins was recognised to be a Traveller. The evidence does not support that proposition as the area had been booked by another party in mid-January 2022.

The fact that the table was booked and this tribunal’s preference for Ms Casey’s evidence that at no time did any employee refer to the Collins as travellers; although, Mr Collins stated he overheard such a comment, leads this tribunal to conclude that no prima facie case has been established that could give rise to an inference of discrimination. This tribunal accepts the explanation that a mistake was made, and that mistake was genuine.

I am mindful of the fact that two key witnesses did not attend at this hearing; however, the tribunal must base its decision on the facts presented and those facts do not raise the inference of discrimination.

As no prima facie case has been established, I determine that the Hotel did not engage in prohibited conduct.

Prima Facie