Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Olivia  O' Brien

Love Laundry

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

Paul O Donoghue O Donoghue Griffin LLP Solicitors

Aoife Lynch BL instructed by Brosnan & Co. 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-00064167-001

19/06/2024

On 22 March 2024, the Complainant, a member of the travelling community, stated that she was discriminated against when she was denied service at the Respondent’s premises, a laundry facility. Specifically, the Complainant stated that Ms X, an employee of the Respondent, told her that she “was not obliged to serve the likes of you”.

On or around 15 March 2024, the Complainant stated that she attended the premises along with her brother to inquire about missing clothes. The Complainant stated that she was very courteous in her in her interactions with Ms X and denied that she accused her of stealing any clothing.

On 22 March 2024, the Complainant stated that she attended the Respondent’s premises again, this time with the intention of using the self-service washers and dryers. She stated that Ms X approached her very aggressively and informed her that that she “was not obliged to serve the likes of you”. The Complainant understood this to mean that she was not going to allow her to use the machines because she was a member of the travelling community. The Complainant asserted that this constituted discriminatory treatment.

On or around 7 March 2024, two of the Complainant’s brothers attended the Respondent’s premises to use the self-service washers and dryers. As the wash cycles had not completed before they left the premises, Ms X offered to take care of their washing by removing it from the machines and advised them that it would be ready by 10am the following morning.

The washing was collected the following day. Later that day, the Complainant’s brother attended the premises with the Complainant and insisted to Ms X that clothing was missing. The Complainant was very abusive in her interactions with Ms X and accused her of having stolen the clothing. She also informed Ms X that she would be contacting the gardai because Ms X would not show her CCTV footage.

Approximately one week later, the two men’s and the Complainant’s father attended the premises and informed Ms X that the clothes that had allegedly gone missing had been found in the back of his van.

On 22 March 2024, the Complainant entered the premises with the intention of using the washing machines and asked Ms X a question about using them. Ms X informed the Complainant that she owed her an apology for having been accused of theft by her. The Complainant stated that she didn’t owe her anything and added that there were still clothes missing. Ms X informed her that she would not be permitted to use the machines if she did not apologise. The Complainant refused to apologise and left the premises.

Ms X denied in evidence that she told the Complainant she was not obliged to serve the likes of her or words to that effect. She also highlighted that she regularly served members of the travelling community in the premises and had no issue in doing so.

Preliminary Matter:

The Law:

Section 21 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 - 2015, states:

(2)(a)

"Before seeking redress under this section, the complainant-

(a) shall, within 2 months after the prohibited conduct 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 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

(ii) exceptionally, where satisfied that it is 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,

and, where such a direction is given, this Part shall have effect accordingly.

Findings:

The alleged incident that is the subject matter of this complaint took place on 22 March 2024 and the Complainant did not send a Form ES1 to the Respondent until 19 June 2024, more than 2 months later.

The Complainant’s representatives explained the delay by stating that she was seeking medical assistance due to the trauma caused by the incident on 22 March 2024. I noted however that although she was well enough to instruct her solicitors on 24 May 2024, she did not attend her GP for a further two weeks, namely on 10 June 2024. Moreover, no witness evidence was presented by any medical professional to explain why her medical condition prevented her from completing the ES1 form within the required period set out in s 21 2(a) above.

Considering the foregoing, I find that the Complainant has failed to establish a reasonable cause, which would have justified an extension of the 2-month period. Accordingly, I find that I do not have jurisdiction in this matter.

I find that I do not have jurisdiction to hear this claim for the reasons set out above.