ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00050460

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Martin Collins	Muckno Hotels Limited The Glencarn Hotel

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	{text}	{text}

Representatives

Tim O'hanrahan O'Hanrahan and Company Solicitors

Oliver CostelloB.L. instructed by Mallon Solicitors LLP

Complaint(s):

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000	CA-00061845-001	28/02/2024

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 21/06/2024

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000,following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

Background:

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

Three complaints were heard at the same time. The complainant and two witnesses (complainants in their own right) for the complainant gave evidence under oath. The respondent was represented by counsel.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant submitted that the respondent refused to honour a wedding booking and attempted to return the deposit paid for the venue and a number of bedrooms on the basis of the complainant’s membership of the travelling community.

Complainant’s evidence:

The complainant stated that it was a sad day, that it is every girls dream to get married. He stated that they had 100 guests at the wedding ceremony and then everybody just went home. He stated that hey went to the cinema on the evening of the wedding.

The complainant stated that they had spent €1600 on suits and although they used them for the wedding, they should have gone to a reception.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent submitted that it had no dealings with the complainant and therefore it was not providing a service to him in accordance with the Act.

Findings and Conclusions:

The respondent submitted that it had no dealings whatsoever with the complainant. The complainant stated that he had no dealings with the respondent. It was stated in evidence that the grandmother of the complainant’s wife was the only one who dealt with the hotel.

On the basis of the foregoing, I find that the complainant did not seek the provision of a service from the respondent and that the respondent was not involved in providing a service directly to the complainant.

Section 22(1) of the Equal Statues Act provides as follows:

22.—(1) The Director of the Workplace Relations Commission may dismiss a claim at any stage if of opinion that it has been made in bad faith or is frivolous, vexatious or misconceived or relates to a trivial matter.

The complainant did not seek a service from the respondent and accordingly I find that the complaint is misconceived.

Decision:

Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act.

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence provided in relation to this matter, my decision is that the complaint is misconceived.

Dated: 26th of November 2024