Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Two Minors

A Supermarket

Representatives

  The Minors Mother

 Sweeney McGann Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00062040-001

01/03/2024

The Complainants Father submitted the complaint on behalf of his two children, a boy and girl.  The Complainant alleged that his children were discriminated against when denied completing the purchase of goods, when the transaction was partially completed with cash at the Respondent premises, as they were members of the Traveler community.  I have decided to exercise my power under the Workplace Relations Act to grant the request, agreed to by both parties, to anonymize the parties due to the involvement of minors.

The Representative (the Minors Mother) primarily relied on their WRC complaint form to set out their complaint. It was alleged that their two children were refused service at the Supermarket because they were members of the Travelling community and the children had suffered embarrassment in the shop with locals present and had suffered embarrassment with their friends because of the incident. Their main case was that the Cashier had refused to complete the purchase the children were doing in the supermarket with coinage due to the children being members of the Traveller community and that this was an act of discrimination.

The Respondent Company is a family-owned private limited company. It has operated for over 60 years and employs 70 staff.

The Complainant and his family have been a customer of' the Respondent prior to and since the alleged incident, they were in store as recently as April of this year.

The Respondent received a handwritten form of complaint the week ending the 24th March 2024 which they are now aware is a complaint form that can be downloaded from the WRC. This form was dated the 13th March 2024. Such complaints are to be made in writing within 2 months of the alleged incident. The complaint was received over 3 months after the alleged incident, more than a month after the statutory period had expired.

It is also the case that the Respondent heard no more in the matter until they received a letter from the WRC on the 5th February 2025 upwards of a year later enclosing a claim form dated 22nd February 2024, which appears to have been received by the WRC on the I st March per stamp. The Respondent Representatives wrote to the WRC on the 14th February 2025 raising this issue and never received a response. It appears that the Complainant lodged their complaint with the WRC prior to sending the complaint to the Respondent in March 2024, which they are obliged to do within 2 months of the alleged discriminatory act. This left the Respondent in a position where they are being called upon to defend a claim over 14 months after the alleged incident occurred and it is not in line with the statutory timeframes. The Respondent sought to have the complaint struck out on that basis.

The Respondents deny the Complainants allegation of discrimination.

It is the Respondent's position that on the 22nd of December 2023, which is one of the busiest days of the year in the run up to the Christmas holidays in the store, that at approximately 1.30p.m. a young girl and boy, both minors, approached a Cashier, Ms MOL with a number of items, The Cashier who is a very experienced employee with over 15 years' service scanned through the items which totalled approximately sixty-five euro, it is the Respondents position that the children proceeded to pay for the items initially using coinage in one and two euro and twenty and ten cents. The Cashier counted out the coins presented to the value of twenty-six euro and eighty cent, which took some time to count. It is further the Respondents position that when the Cashier asked if the children had the balance of the sum due the young girl replied that she had some additional coinage in a small purse. The Cashier asked whether she had any notes to make up the balance to which she replied that she did not but that she would ask her Father who was in the car. While the minor girl went outside the trolley remained in the checkout lane, and the Cashier chose to wait for them to return and did not proceed with any other transaction at the till despite the queue getting longer and where she would have had the option to void that transaction The Cashier clearly expected the transaction to continue and did not refuse service at any time. When the young girl returned, she did so with her Father. He took issue with the Cashier and she found him to be very confrontational. He asked why she was not taking their money. The Cashier made it clear to him that she was not refusing to take his money but asked if he had any notes to pay for the balance as it was a very busy day. He asked for the money that had been paid to be returned to him and alleged that she had refused to serve them. The Cashier made it clear that she was not refusing to serve but he again demanded the return of the coins. The Cashier is very clear that she did not refuse to serve the child or her Father, she simply asked if they had any notes to pay the balance of the amount owed. The Complainant had notes available and it can be seen in the CCTV footage where he can be seen to be holding large denomination notes during the interaction with the Cashier but chose not to use them.

The Respondent's Owner, one of the store managers, was on the floor shortly after the interaction. The Complainant approached her with the children, directed to her by another employee. The Owner was informed by the Complainant that the Cashier had refused to serve his daughter. The Owner asked the Complainant to recount the situation as she was not aware of-the alleged incident. He stated that his daughter came in to do shopping and was refused service, He stated that the Cashier had refused to take the coins. The Owner asked what the value of the items were as the girl was holding a handful of' coins. When she was told the value of the transaction was about 65 euro she asked if they wished to pay the entire sum in coins, The Complainant did show that he had notes but confirmed to the Owner that they wished to pay in full using coins. The Owner explained that given the time of year and how busy the store was that it would be difficult for the Cashier to have to count out that amount of coinage. She asked if he could count out the exact amount owed in coins or if he could count it into five or ten euro batches. The Complainant repeated 'you are refusing to accept our payment'. The Manager said that was not the case but that she was trying to find a solution and then also offered that she would give them coin bags to count the monies into. The Father turned and walked away and left the store mid-conversation while the Owner was trying to find a solution. The Owner was clear at all times that they were willing and able to serve the Complainant and his family.

 It is the Respondents position that an apology was also offered by both Managers for the misunderstanding in an effort to de-escalate the situation along with a voucher as a goodwill gesture to minors Mother (who had come into the store after the incident), but she refused this offer.

Following the incident a handwritten form was received, without a postmark during the week ending 24 th of March 2024. Discussions subsequently took place between the parties but the issue was not resolved. 

The Respondent has never had such a complaint levied against them. Statements were prepared on the day of the incident by the staff involved which support their account of what occurred.

It is clear that the Complainant and his daughter were not treated in a manner less favourable than any other customer irrespective of their membership of the Travelling Community. In the first instance the Complainant's daughter was served and had part paid for the goods. When it was clear that there was an intention to use small coins to pay for the balance of upwards of 40 Euros and that this would take further time where there was a queue forming behind her and it was the stores busiest time of years they were asked as would be of any customer had they the ability to pay the balance with notes. The Complainant took the decision to interpret this request as a refusal despite that it was made clear to him and his wife on a number of occasions that there was no refusal to serve but that the Respondent was simply trying to find a reasonable solution to the issue. Three members of management took the time to try to resolve the issue on the day, and an offer of a  voucher to acknowledge any upset from the misunderstanding was refused. The apologies offered by the Owner and Manager were refused.

It is also the case that per the Central Bank Regulations that no entity other than the Central Bank or such persons as ordered by the Minister are obliged to accept more than 50 coins denominated in euro or in cent in a single transaction. It is the Respondent's position that they had already accepted upwards of 50 coins if not more at the time they sought if notes were available to pay the balance.

At the Hearing the issue of whether the Adjudicator had the legal jurisdiction to make a decision on the substantive complaint was explained to the parties. The Respondent had also raised the issue of jurisdiction in their submission. Details and evidence of the substantive complaint were also heard and the parties were advised that a decision on the substantive issue could only issue if the preliminary matter was accepted within the Adjudicators jurisdiction.

The Complainant stated in his complaint form that the alleged discrimination took place on December 22nd 2023. The complaint form was lodged with the WRC on March 1st 2024. The form was incomplete and the WRC wrote to the Complainant on March 13th 2024 and again on November 6th 2024 seeking further information regarding the Respondent and any ES1 form completed (notification to a Respondent of taking an action under the Equal Status Act) or ES2 forms received. From submissions just prior to the Hearing it is clear an ES1 form was lodged between the 3rd and 4th month after the incident. The Complainants Representative (the minors Mother) explanation for the delay was they were unaware of the requirement to submit the ES! Form  within 2 months.

Preliminary Matter

Having regard to the sequence of events in this case the first issue to determine is if the substantive complaint before me is eligible for decision or is statute barred. Section 21 of Equal Status Act 2000 as amended requires that:

(2) Before seeking redress under this section the complainant—

( a) shall, within 2 months after the prohibited conducted is alleged to have occurred, or, where more than one incident of prohibited conduct is alleged to have occurred, within 2 months after the last such occurrence, notify the respondent in writing of—

(i) the nature of the allegation,

(ii) the complainant’s intention, if not satisfied with the respondent’s response to the allegation, to seek redress under this Act ,

(3) ( a ) On application by a complainant the  Director of the Workplace Relations Commission or, as the case may be, the Circuit Court may —

(i) for reasonable cause, direct that in relation to the complainant subsection (2) shall have effect as if for the reference to 2 months there were substituted a reference to such period not exceeding 4 months as is specified in the direction, or

Having considered all of the background to this case and the fact that discussions were ongoing between the parties for some time after the incident  I have decided to agree to the request that reasonable cause existed for the delay in the submission of the ES1 form and section 21.3 a (i) should apply to this complaint.

The Law (Section 6);

Section 38(A) of the Equal Status Acts sets out the burden of proof which applies in a claim of discrimination. It requires the complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts upon which he/she can rely in asserting that prohibited conduct has occurred in relation to him/her.

Both Adjudication Officers and Equality Officers in complaints made under the Equal Status Act have drawn on the Labour Court decision in Mitchell v Southern Health Board [2001] ELR 201 to explain what constitutes presumed prohibited conduct, also referred to as a prima facie case.

To establish a prima facie case, the Complainant relied on the act they were known to the Respondent as members of the Traveller community and this was not denied at the Hearing. The issue was not really pursued vigorously at the Hearing and I decide that the most appropriate outcome, from the outline circumstances of the case and given there are minors involved is to deem that a prmia facie case has been established, albeit on a very limited scale.

Both Ms MOL (the Cashier) and the Complainants Father gave evidence to the Hearing under affirmation.  Ms MOLs evidence was that she worked for the Respondent for 17 years as a Cashier. She advised the day of the incident was very busy and the shop was full and she was operating till 5. She advised a boy and girl aged approximately 13 or younger put stuff on the belt that she clocked up on the register and it added up to 68 Euros. She advised the children handed over a large number of coins which added up to 26 Euros. She advised the children opened a purse with a large amount of 10 and 20 cent coins inside. The Cashier asked had they anything larger to pay with as a large queue was building up at her till. She said the children said they did not and they then left to go out to their Father.  She said the Father came back in and produced a large number of notes and did not want to proceed with the transaction, wanted the payment already made refunded and Ms MOL said the Father of the minors got a bit mad and then left.  The Cashier then voided the sale. Ms. MOL stated she never refused to serve the children and did all in her power to resolve the situation.  Ms. MOL stated there was a lot more than 50 coins involved.

The Complainants Father (who did not witness the incident directly) and therefore his evidence has to be considered in that context, explained how his children came out to him in the car and advised him they were not being served. He advised he entered the supermarket and wanted to know why they were not being served. He advised he supported what his  Representative (his wife) had said about the event.

The core issue in this case is whether the Cashier deliberately did not complete the transaction involving the minors and refused service to the Minors because they were members of the Traveller community.  From the evidence, the supermarket, two days before Christmas, was very busy and it was reasonable and not prejudicial of the Cashier with a queue building up, to ask the minors had they larger value coins or notes to complete their purchases. The transaction was put on hold while the children went out to their Father with the Cashiers request. From the evidence supplied by the Cashier, under affirmation, she never refused to complete the purchase, she just asked the children was there a more convenient way to pay. I see this as a normal exchange between a Cashier and a Customer and events seem to have escalated when the minors Father got involved.  From the evidence the transaction was cancelled at the Fathers request. Repeated offers of apology or attempts to resolve the situation were not accepted by the Complainant. I am very conscious that the only evidence of a person who was directly involved in the incident was the Cashier. All other evidence/contributions of the minors Mother and Father to the initial incident is hearsay. Overall, in considering these events and their timing, the request to pay with larger value notes or coins could easily have applied to a minor who was not a member of the travelling community or indeed any adult who presented with large amounts of small coinage on such a busy day. I conclude from the evidence that the Cashier did not engage in a discriminatory or prohibited conduct act as her actions were of a reasonable person and could have applied to any member of society she was engaging with in the circumstances described.

I find that the complaint is not well founded and the Respondent did not engage in an act of prohibited conduct.  

Discrimination