Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Hotel Guest

Hotel

Representatives

Paul Kilraine BL Instructed by Silke and Company Solicitors

Simon Gillispie BL instructed by Conor McLaughlin & Associates

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00057483-001

29/06/2023

The Complainant alleged she was discriminated against by the Respondent, on the basis of being a member of the Traveller community, on January 1st 2023 when she was denied entry by the Respondent, a Security Company, to a function at a Hotel.

The Complainant provided the WRC with the name and address for the Respondent when she submitted her complaint that she was discriminated against on the basis of being a member of the Traveller Community when she was denied entry to a music function being held at a Hotel, by a Security Guard she alleged was employed by the Respondent on January 1st 2023. The named Respondent, a Security Services Company, attended the Hearing to investigate the complaint and advised it was a stranger to the complaint..  A Director of the Respondent, Ms.  Fiona Dullaghan, gave evidence to the Hearing, on affirmation, that the Respondent was not engaged by the Hotel for the function and they were not present at the Hotel on January 1st 2023. Ms. Dullaghan stated she was responsible for office administration and staff and was aware of bookings and staff. She confirmed, under affirmation, that the named person given as providing Security to the event, is and never was an employee of the Respondent and she had checked all HR records to verify same.  Ms. Dullagahan was cross examined by the Complainant Representative and advised they had around 55 staff at present and this varied on work. She advised they had an ad hoc arrangement with the Hotel to provide security some times but it was infrequent. She confirmed they do engage some casual staff for events when needed. She advised they may use a third party provider, at times, if stretched.  She was asked about two specific entertainment companies (possibly involved on the night of January 1st 2023) and were they clients of the Respondent and she advised they were not.

Immediately post the Hearing, the Respondent provided written evidence from the Hotel which confirmed they were not engaged at the Hotel on January 1st 2023. They also provided a staff listing (appropriately redacted) that showed the named Security Guard did not work for the Respondent and provided confirmation he was not known to the Hotel and that the Hotel did not provide security for the function in question on January 1st 2023. The Respondent stated they were a “total stranger” in legal terms in legal terms to the complaint and denied any involvement or alleged discrimination.  The Complainant was given three weeks from the date of the Hearing to provide any evidence that contradicted any evidence supplied by the Respondent, but did not provide any further evidence to the WRC. 

While the required ES1 timeframe was not complied with by the Complainant, I deem there was reasonable cause for the delay in that the Complainant was involved in attempts to establish the Respondent identity for their complaint and that is it fair and reasonable in the particular circumstance of the case to do so direct that subsection (2) shall not apply in relation to the complainant to the extent specified in the direction.

In conclusion, I find that the named Respondent was not present at the date of the alleged discrimination and I find that the Respondent is misidentified by the Complainant.

I decide that the Complainant has misidentified the Respondent for the complaint and the complaint is not well founded.

Discrimination