Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Bridget  Quilligan-Culligan

Unicorn Bars And Restaurants Limited Unicorn Pub & Fables Restaurant

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

David Kent BL instructed by Denis A. Linehan & Co.

 Stephen Hanaphy BL instructed by Kennedy Law LLP

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00063861-001

01/06/2024

The Complainant sought redress under the Equal Status Act 2000 where he claims he was discriminated against on the grounds she is a member of the Travelling Community. The Complainant was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission and received on 1 June 2024. No submissions were received in advance of the hearing nor was any documentary evidence provided. Evidence was given on Affirmation.

The Respondent had two witnesses who both swore an Affirmation; Mr Jim Anderson, Head of Security and Mr. Byran Greene, General Manager with the Respondent. No submissions were received in advance of the hearing nor was any documentary evidence provided.

There was an application from both parties to have video footage and CCTV footage played at the remote hearing. This application was refused on the basis the parties were notified of the complaint on 8 July 2024 and the hearing date on 9 September 2024. No response was received from either party despite the request to file submissions and any evidence it seeks to rely on 15 working days in advance. In the interest of fairness, each party is entitled to time to view the footage with their client and take instructions in advance of the hearing. From a practical perspective and to ensure files are correctly uploaded in a secure manner, it is not possible to email the files to the Adjudication Officer on the day.  The Complainant made a second application for an adjournment for the video footage to be shown, this was also refused for the same reasons.

Both parties cross examined each of the witnesses.

It was the Complainant’s evidence that she attended at the Respondent’s pub and restaurant with her husband on St Stephen’s Day after spending the day in the hospital a family member.

She called ahead to make a reservation but was told it was walk in only on that day.

She met Mr Anderson upon entering the restaurant and was told the premise was full and a reservation was needed. She left with her husband and returned to the car.

The Complainant saw a man and two children enter the premises but was not refused entry. She returned to Mr Anderson with her phone on video mode to ask him was the reason she was refused was because she was a member of the Travelling Community.

It was her evidence that the refusal by the Respondent was due to her being a member of the Travelling Community.

Mr. Anderson gave evidence of refusing the Complainant as it was his subjective opinion that her husband was intoxicated in line with the requirements to serve alcohol responsibility. It was his evidence that the refusal to allow the Complainant service in the restaurant was not because she was a member of the Travelling Community.

Mr Green denied the Respondent treated the Complainant less favourably because she was a member of the Travelling Community.

The first issue to decide upon is whether the Workplace Relations Commission has jurisdiction to decide a complaint where the allegation of discrimination pursuant to the Equal Status Act occurred on a licensed premised.

Both parties were given an opportunity to respond to this jurisdictional point at the end of the hearing. The Complainant submitted the legislation offered a choice to either proceed before the Workplace Relations Commission or District Court. It had chosen the Workplace Relations Commission. The Respondent agreed with the Complainant’s submission relying on the insertion of the word “may” in Section 19 (2) of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003.

Section 19 (2) of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003 provides :-

“(2) A person who claims that prohibited conduct has been directed against him or her on, or at the point of entry to, licensed premises may apply to the District Court for redress.”

Section 19 continues:   

“prohibited conduct” means discrimination against, or sexual harassment or harassment of, or permitting the sexual harassment or harassment of a person in contravention of Part II (Discrimination and Related Activities) of the Act of 2000 on, or at the point of entry to, licensed premises.”

By letter dated 12 June 2024, the Workplace Relations Commission wrote to the Complainant highlighting the possibility of a jurisdictional issue with this complaint where it relates to a licensed premises. A response was sought within 21 days. No response was received.

Upon inquiry, Mr Anderson gave evidence that the Respondent’s premises was a licensed premise.

The Workplace Relations Commission does not have jurisdiction to decide on this complaint where it is clear that the only Court provided for in Section 19 (2) of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003 is the District Court.

The Workplace Relations Commission does not have jurisdiction to decide on this complaint pursuant to Section 19 (2) of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003.

Equal Status - Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003 – Licensed Premises