Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Xinshuo  Jiang

Campus Accommodation (UCC) Dac

Representatives

Self-represented

 Internal/Self-represented

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00053433-001

25/10/2022

The Complainant is a Chinese national who is studying at University College Cork (UCC) and who availed of accommodation through the respondent, UCC Campus Accommodation Dac, a subsidiary wholly owned by UCC, and registered as a charity.

The Complainant started living at his accommodation at the Victoria Mills complex, Block C on 4/9/2022.

On 10/9/22, the Complainant filed an ES1 form alleging two things:-

1. That the accommodation he had was less good (unrenovated) than comparable accommodation (renovated) in other blocks in Victoria Mills, which had been renovated during the summer 2022.

2. That all of the Chinese students were ‘segregated’ and put into Block C together.

He submits that these two factors combine to form a complaint under the Equal Status Act (ESA), on the ‘ground of race’ on the basis that he has been treated ‘less favourably’ on the basis of his ‘nationality’ by the Respondent.

The Respondent denies the Complainant’s claims.

It further submits that it does not believe this complaint was made in good faith, and points to the fact that the Complainant sought €1,000 compensation from the Respondent (while proposing that he continue to live in the accommodation) on 9/9/2022, one day prior to filing his ES1 form, which it declined.

The Respondent filed its ES2 form on 21/09/2022, setting out its reply as follows:-

-        UCC China Office books an allocation of rooms at Campus Accommodation. [In 2022, the Complainant’s accommodation was booked by UCC China office as part of that allocation of rooms.]

-        In 2022, UCC China Office requested that all Chinese students in their allocation be housed together. [The context for this was Covid-19, whereby Ireland was in the immediate aftermath of Covid-19, and China was still in lockdown until late 2022, Chinese students were travelling from a ‘zero Covid’ environment; and the request was made in deference to the concerns of parents and the travelling students home universities, via UCC China office.]

It further submits that it actively engaged with the Complainant and dealt with any maintenance and management issues promptly and actively as they occurred (e.g. the replacing of oven parts, and ultimately the oven; offering to sand the desk for the Complainant; replacement of a lightbulb etc.); and additionally offered the Complainant a pro rata refund (in order to accommodate him to leave the accommodation and take up residence elsewhere, as a proffered resolution) which he declined.

The Complainant filed the WRC complaint, the subject matter of the case herein, on 25/10/2022, alleging that the Respondent had breached the Equal Status Act 2000, in relation to him, on the race ground.

The Complainant took the affirmation and gave evidence on his own behalf. He submitted that he received worse accommodation than students of other nationalities (as his accommodation was in Block C of the Victoria Mills complex) and that the Chinese students were all housed together, which he said was ‘segregation.’

He outlined that he had contacted the China office, but submitted that he applied and accepted this contract with UCC Campus Accommodation. He submitted that no-one told him he would be living surrounded by Chinese students, and that the accommodation was in ‘worse condition.’

He said that the complex was constructed in two phases, and where he lived was constructed in the first phase. He submitted that the phase 1 section of the complex, where he lived, was in worse condition that phase 2, which was newer.

He submitted that Blocks B, D & E were renovated.  He said that there were no Chinese students, that he observed, in the renovated one and he therefore submitted that it was not a random or fair allocation. He said Blocks B,D & E (the renovated blocks) had a total of 170 beds whereas Block A & C (the unrenovated blocks) had a total of 119 beds. He said that there were more beds in B, D & E but that that section contained no Chinese students.

The Adjudication Officer enquired of the Complainant as to whether he raised this with the China Office in UCC. He said that he had, but that the answer he got was that if he did not like it, he could leave. He subsequently clarified that this was a Whatsapp message (‘chat’) and that he received no email communication from the China Office.

He disputed the figures the University submitted breaking down the student nationalities, saying that they were for Block A&C (both unrenovated) combined, not just for Block C.

He submitted that the Chinese students were intentionally allocated and ‘segregated’ in Block C, and said that ‘nationality cannot tell the whole truth.’

He said that he was on the 2nd floor and that all the students in his apartment and on the second floor were Chinese. He said that it was ‘not a random allocation.’

He said: ‘They put Chinese students together when possible.’ He said that the students on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th floors were also Chinese. He said that there had been one student of another nationality on the ground floor, and that he moved out, part-way through the year.

On cross-examination

The Complainant confirmed that he was living in the Crow’s Nest apartment complex this year which is also managed by the Respondent, which opened for student intake in September 2023, and that he has raised no complaints in relation to the Crow’s Nests apartments this year.

He said that he big difference between this year and last year’s accommodation.

He was asked about the nature of his complaint and he said: “What really matters I would say is the renovated one has double beds which is important.” He said the second thing was that the renovated apartments have “energy efficient heating.” He said that Victoria Mills Block C, did not have energy efficient heating which he said would make a “big difference” in terms of the electricity bill.

The Complainant shied away from using the word “substandard” in respect of the accommodation, stating that he understood that “substandard” accommodation had a legal definition in respect of the RTB (Residential Tenancies Board) and that the accommodation he was “not necessarily saying substandard” in respect of the accommodation he had received.

He was asked why he had applied to re-book Victoria Mills, and listed it as his first choice, for 2023, given his complaints. He said that he was aware it was going to be renovated over the summer and that he expected that after that summer, Victoria Mills was going to be a good place. He said: “How bad it can be? It’s all renovated.” He also explained that in terms of the course he is studying in UCC, Victoria Mills is the closest location. He said: “It just fits me.”

He was asked why he had applied to book accommodation again through the Respondent company given that he had alleged it to have racist practices and policies. He said: “I don’t think you will do that kind of segregation again after my complaint.” It was put to him that, in fact, he did not actually believe that the management of campus accommodation have racist policies. He said he did believe it. It was put to him that the management company had put him in a brand-new complex, after he had made a complaint, and that this in no way fit with the allegation of racism he had made. He said: “You are being racist in the allocation of 2022. I’m not saying that you were going to be racist again in 2023.” It was put to him that another interpretation is that campus accommodation has never been racist, and that that was a more likely interpretation.

The Complainant was asked about “static management” and whether it had formed part of the Chinese discourse, in the wake of Covid-19. It was put to him that static management informed campus lockdown policies for the first half of 2022, that there was a considerable amount of disquiet in the discourse in China, likely that the Beijing agent would have requested that all Chinese students be housed together.

It was put to him that Campus Accommodation offered him a full refund after his complaint. The Complainant disputed this and said it was a partial refund. He said that the 1st month would not have been refunded. [Adjudication Officer’s Note: Ms. Nicola Cronin clarified in her evidence that what was offered was a pro-rata refund.]

The Complainant was asked about his various complaints and what the Respondent had done to address them, including replacing the oven and the dishwasher.

The Complainant said that the oven was making a very loud noise. He acknowledged that the Respondent replaced it. He said he reported it in September, and it was ultimately replaced in approximately January. He said it took three or four months.

The Complainant was asked about the complaint he made about his desk. It was put to him that Campus Accommodation offered to fix it for him. He accepted that but said it was inconvenient for him, that he had to clear everything off his desk. He then clarified that was not a big inconvenience. He said that it was fixed also in January or February, also long time after. It was put to him that, in fact, the desk had not been fixed, that he had been contacted several times by Campus Accommodation in relation to it to arranged a time to fix it, and that he had not responded to their attempts. He disagreed with this saying that he had responded and that they “also tried to fix it by polishing it.”

It was put to him that on 9th September, 2022, he contacted Mr. Kieran Farrell, of Campus Accommodation, seeking compensation €1,000. The Complainant said he was not too sure what he had requested, saying “I guess I also asked for a refund?”

It was put to him that he did not engage with any of the offers made by the Respondent to engage with him. He said “March 23rd – that is just one month away from the end of the tenancy. What kind of result is that?”

He was asked as to why he had not accepted a refund and sought accommodation elsewhere. He said: “I would like to stress it’s not a refund, it’s a partial refund.” He said: “It’s very hard for students to find accommodation – in Cork city. For non-local students like me, it’s even harder. It’s not easy to find somewhere.”

Closing remarks

In his  closing remarks, the Complainant said that he thought such practice, poor living conditions, negligence, impacted not only in respect of accommodation but also community life. He said that his experience in the unrenovated apartment was in stark contrast to the experience of his friends who were assigned a spot in the renovated apartments. He described it as a “steep situation”, that it was “profound. ” He re-iterated the need for a new desk. He said that there was a palpable difference and emphasised the psychological and emotional toll.

Mr. Hurley, on behalf of the Respondent – opening remarks

Mr. Hurley submitted that Campus Accommodation is a wholly owned subsidiary of UCC, and a registered charity, which means no dividends are paid, and all monies are re-invested back into the organisation. It is charged with assisting UCC in achieving its goal of having a greater number of international students come to Cork to study. He submitted that acting in a discriminatory manner would be contrary to those goals. He submitted that the Respondent categorically deny any discrimination.

He said that there are a number of accommodation complexes in Cork, managed by the Respondent. He explained, that in his view, two unique events occurred:

1.      Process of renovation was ongoing. Within the Victoria Mills complex, part of it was renovated and part of it was unrenovated when the Complainant moved in.

2.      The timing was in the immediate aftermath of Covid-19 in Ireland whereas in China, the Covid-19 lockdown lasted until December 2022.

He submitted that discrimination, under the relevant section of the legislation, required there to have been “less favourable treatment” on the protected ground (in this instance race) and the Respondent denies that. He submitted that in the renovated units and in the unrenovated units, the facilities and the utilities were the exact same. He further submitted that there was a mixture of students including Irish students in the unrenovated area.

Nicola Cronin – Affirmation – first witness for the Respondent.

Ms. Cronin gave evidence that she was the acting Services Manager, that she was responsible for the administration for accommodation for the coming year, the lottery etc. She said that she was on the design team overseeing the refurbishment. She had been in her role since 2010.

She explained that the current strategic plan was to increase the numbers and enhance the experience of international students travelling to Ireland, both during the summer and during the academic year.

She said that in 2022 – 200 Chinese students had come through the ‘China office’, in 2023, that increased to 250 students and has now increased again to 260.

She said that it was very important to their business and they work very closely with the JRO which is the agent who brings Chinese students to UCC.

She said that it would be catastrophic for their business to have any discriminatory practices – that it would undermine the achievement of their strategic goals.

She explained that the Victoria Mills complex was built in two phases. The first phase was built in 2004, the second phase was built a few years later. UCC acquired it in 2015. She explained that it was in the process of renovating Victoria Mills. She explained that renovation projects were always broken up into phases, and completed over different summers. Typically, complexes were renovated every ten years. In this case, the first phase of the renovations took place in the summer of 2019. The second phase was due to take place in 2020 but did not happen due to the pandemic. Block A&C were not renovated as planned in 2020, and ultimately, they were renovated in 2023. She explained that renovation projects are broken up for a number of reasons. She said that they only have a 12/13 week window (during the summer) – so, there is only so much that can be done during that window. She explained that the Respondent also has summer business too, coming from attendees at summer schools, business conferences, study abroad programmes at the University, and that some of those are booked years in advance. The Respondent has to try to have continuity in their summer business also.

She said that all renovations are broken up into two phases. She outlined the main difference between the renovated and unrenovated units was furniture and furnishings, that unrenovated would have slightly more dated furniture, but explained that the Respondent still operates a policy of replacing any damaged furniture etc. as the need arises. She explained that they were putting new built-in beds and desks into the renovated units and said that the main difference was aesthetics. She emphasised that the layout and functions were identical. She said that the units still have balconies and that they still have en suites. She said that what was being done was “an upgrade  but not a complete tear down.”

The Complainant subsequently made additional complaints which he had not previously raised (which are not properly before me in relation to this discrimination claim). The witness emphasised how seriously they take any complaint, that the Respondent had sent in contractors, and that that complaint had not been raised initially.

She was asked as to whether there were predominately Chinese students in Block C, in Victoria Mills. She  explained that the reason was a request from the BJRO (April of 2022) when China was still largely locked down. She said that the BJRO (‘the China office’), the Chinese, and the parents were very concerned; and that the China office wanted the Chinese students coming through this programme accommodated together. [Ireland had come out of lockdown.] She said that the request came [to her] from the “China office.” That request was from parents and home Universities in China.

She outlined that the Complainant made the complaint, and she contacted the person she had been dealing with, as the contact point for this cohort of [Chinese] students. She notified him that the Complainant had made an allegation of racism, and that she had immediately gone on to deal with the issue of the oven. She said that the response she received indicated that it was the Complainant’s first time outside of China, and that the contact person did not perceive this to be an issue pertaining to racism, and that he would seek to de-escalate the matter.

She said that a pro rata refund to the Complainant was offered but not accepted by him. She said that she made efforts to resolve the issue.

She said that the Complainant sought to re-book the same accommodations (Victoria Mills) with the Respondent for the following academic year.

She outlined that the rebooking process starts in February, for the following academic year. She explained that there had been approximately 5000 applications, and that Victoria Mills would have received approximately 2000 of those applications.

She said that there was a “Re-bookers’ lottery”, which was opened to re-bookers before applications are opened to new applicants. She said that a percentage of the accommodation goes to re-bookers  (30%), and, after that, those that were unsuccessful went onto a waiting list. When the Respondent opened ‘the Crow’s Nest’ accommodations, the applicants  on the waiting list were offered the Crow’s Nest. She said that Victoria Mills is oversubscribed, that  it is their most popular location, which receives approximately 2000 applications, whereas they may receive 500/600 for their other locations.

She explained that the Crow’s Nest is a flagship development, which is state-of-the-art. She said that it has a beautiful common room, beautiful aesthetics, study rooms, laundry, a café on site (which is  not run by them but is a very popular café). She said they were very proud of it.

In the Complainant’s case, she explained that he applied to re-book in Victoria Mills for the following academic year, but was unsuccessful in the Re-bookers’ lottery, was then put on the waiting list, and was subsequently offered a spot in the Crow’s Nest, which he accepted and took up.

It was put to her that this was not consistent with a racist policy. She agreed: “absolutely not.” She explained that there was a lottery, that there was absolutely no discrimination of any kind. She was asked whether there were any complaints about the Crow’s Nest, by the Complainant? She confirmed there was not.

She outlined the impact on her of the allegation of racism. She said that she worked very closely with the student union, with every department. She said that the allegation of discrimination was devastating, that she had worked in student accommodation since 1997. She said that it was her career. She felt that the allegation was an attack on her integrity. She said that “personally, it has  been a terrible, awful time.” She said that she loved her job and that she was good at her job, that that would not be possible if she were racist and if she had a racist policy. She outlined that she had long-standing links to China, that her husband’s business partner is Chinese, and spends six months a year in China. She herself had holidayed in China last year, that she had Chinese friends who come and visit her in Ireland. She emphasised that there is “no theory or concept that I would operate what I do with a basis in racism.” She said: “It is abhorrent to me.”

On Cross-examination

The Complainant challenged the witness on the idea that the differences were merely cosmetic between the unrenovated and the renovated apartments.

The witness outlined that the Respondent replaced bedroom furniture, bedroom flooring etc. but the functionality is the same. She said that they are RTB (Residential Tenancies Board) standard, that they are to the highest standard.

The Complainant said that Blocks B, D & E have a very good living standard – he said that his friends live there.

He asked whether the witness thought that a double bed (in the renovated apartments) and a single bed (in the unrenovated apartments) was a cosmetic difference?

The witness explained that “those rooms are single occupancy for students” but that during the summer months, they are sold as “double occupancy.” She explained that the (new) beds were a large single/small double. She said that in Blocks B, D & E, the double beds are 4ft beds.

She was asked about the desks. The Complainant put to her that the study desks the students get in the renovated apartments have some storage features, in the desk, whereas Block C has flat, old-fashioned desks.

The witness said in terms of the new desks “we would always try to exceed expectations.” She explained that UCC bought Victoria Mills in 2015, that the Respondent was trying to move on, they were renovating when they could. She said that there is some storage for aesthetics – it looks nice and is functional.

The Complainant raised the issue of the “bumpy desk” in his accommodations, with the witness. The witness explained that to remedy the desk as it bubbles over time, the maintenance team sands it down, and the occupant cannot be in the room, at the time. She explained that the RTB regulations outline that the Respondent cannot enter the Complainant’s bedroom without his express permission. She explained that it was necessary to have his permission in order to enter his room to sand down the desk, as required, but that he had not given his permission.

The Complainant questioned the witness on whether the UCC Beijing Office (BJRO) is part of UCC. He put it to her that they all use all of the logos of UCC. The witness explained that she liaises with them and they tell her what documents to use. He asked whether she would consider them UCC staff. She  said that she liaised with them, and refers to them as “the UCC China Office.” She said “yes, I would really.” She said that the booking agent she deals with in the BJRO tells her how many students are coming, where they are going etc.

The Complainant again questioned whether the witness would consider them UCC staff, whether communications between them were internal, whether they the BJRO was working as agents on the Respondent’s behalf.

The witness outlined to the Complainant that he had booked through UCC Beijing Office (BJRO), that the request through BJRO that that cohort of Chinese students be accommodated together came from their home universities and students/parents, and came to the Respondent through BJRO. She explained that this year, Chinese students are spread throughout all of the Respondent’s developments. She said that now, the China is open, the world is open, but that 2022 was a different time in terms of bookings, the world was “terrified”, and China was in a different situation as it was “a Covid-free zone.” She said in terms of the Chinese students, who booked through that programme being accommodated together, that the Respondent was asked to do it.

The Complainant put to the witness that the UCC Beijing office (BJRO) is a subsidiary of UCC. He said that he booked the Respondent’s accommodation due to the Chinese office recommendation of it.

The witness explained that rooms are reserved for the cohort of students who come through the BJRO office. She went on to clarify that the Complainant’s accommodation was reserved through the BJRO his first year, but that the second year (this year), he was no longer part of the allocation – he had applied himself for the accommodation.

She explained that Chinese students who were included in a cohort of approximately fifty (50) international students (she was unsure of the exact number of those who were Chinese) were re-bookers who booked themselves and were therefore not part of the allocation for the “China Office.”

Kieran Farrell - Affirmation – 2nd witness for the Respondent

Mr. Farrell was an employee who worked as the complex manager of Victoria Mills, at the relevant time. He outlined that he was involved in the day-to-day running of the complex, liaising with students in relation to requests, queries, maintenance etc.

He explained that there were Irish students in both the renovated unit and unrenovated unit. He outlined his attempts to resolve complaints made by the Complainant – he said there were maintenance complaints, a handyman was sent up to assess, and that a named contractor was engaged in relation to the appliances. He explained that there was an issue with the oven, that on September 20th, a fan and element were fitted, that there were then some further issues, and a contractor was engaged, and another part replaced (cooler fan motor) on November 24th. He explained that Campus Accommodation was responsive in replying.

He said that the Complainant was seeking alternative solutions, that he wanted to move into a new (renovated) apartment, but that was not possible as they were fully occupied. He added that it was also not possible for the Complainant to move into another unrenovated apartment, as they were also fully occupied.

He said that the Complainant asked him for €1,000 compensation.  He said that was “not within my remit” and he “passed the information on to Nicola [Cronin].”

He outlined the difference in the renovated apartments, including that they were painted a different colour, that a single bed was changed to a small double bed (still single occupancy) and that there was great demand for student accommodation, they were very oversubscribed. He said that there were no substantive issues in the unrenovated apartments.

On Cross-examination

The Complainant put to the witness that he had sent him a video of the oven.

Mr. Farrell said that after 24/11 (second fix), that he knocked on the door, and the other resident answered, he asked about the oven and was told there were no issues now. The Complainant said that “the oven is right behind my wall - of course, they don’t have a problem.”

s. 3(1) of the Equal Status Act sets out, as follows:-

(1) For the purposes of this Act, discrimination shall be taken to occur where –

(a)    On any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as “the discriminatory grounds”) which exists at present or previously existed but no longer exists or may exist in the future, or which is imputed to the person concerned, a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated,

(b)   (i) a person who is associated with another person is treated, by virtue of that association, less favourably than a person who is not so associated is, has been or would be treated, and

(ii) similar treatment of that person on any of the discriminatory grounds would, by virtue of paragraph (a), constitute discrimination,

or

(c)    (i) a person is in a category of persons who share a common characteristic by reason of which discrimination may, by virtue of paragraph (a), occur in respect of those persons,

(ii) the person is obliged by the provider of a service (within the meaning of section 4(6)) to comply with a condition (whether in the nature of a requirement, practice or otherwise) but is unable to do so,

(iii) substantially more people outside the category than within it are able to comply with the condition, and

(iv) the obligation to comply with the condition cannot be justified as being reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.

“The Ground of Race”

s. 3(2)(h) of the Equal Status Act sets out, as follows:-

(2) As between any two persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are:

I find for the Respondent. I find that this complaint is not well-founded, and I decide accordingly.

Equal Status; Provision Accommodation; the Ground of Race; Nationality