Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Dr Coleen Jones

Irish Association of Humanistic and Integrative Psychotherapy CLG

Representatives

Self-represented

 Self-represented

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00071469-001

09/05/2025

The complainant referred her case to the Workplace Relations Commission under section 21 of the Equal Status Act 2000, claiming discrimination on grounds of age and victimisation in relation to membership of the respondent association. 

The respondent submitted that the case was vexatious and raised various preliminary issues, including the application of statutory timeframes for referral of claims to the Commission.  It also fully refuted the claims against the respondent.  

The complainant’s complaint is about her work as a psychotherapist.  Professional membership of the respondent is a requirement to work as a psychotherapist in Ireland and contributes to best practice as a clinical supervisor.

The subject matter of the complaint concerns an instruction of the respondent in late 2021 that membership fees for the respondent and fees for the Irish Council for Psychotherapy (the “ICP”) be paid separately.  The complainant submitted one cheque in December 2021 to cover fees for both previously mentioned organisations, which cheque the respondent refused to accept.  The complainant had submitted one cheque for fees every year since 1997.  The refusal to accept the complainant’s cheque was discriminatory and constituted victimisation of the complainant; there is no other explanation for why the respondent refused to accept one cheque from the complainant.   The complainant has not been fairly and equally treated.

The respondent’s non-acceptance of the complainant’s cheque resulted in cancellation of the complainant’s membership on 31 March 2022.  The complainant wrote numerous letters to the respondent about this but received no reasonable response.  The complainant disputed the respondent’s reasoning for the submission of two separate payments.  The complainant did not accept that the ICP payment was voluntary or optional for the respondent’s members and took issue with a percentage who had not paid both contributions and were not sanctioned. 

The complainant was singled out and excluded for having previously raised queries about how the association was run.  The respondent’s actions have caused the complainant distress, resulted in her removal from the registers of the ICP and the respondent, and prevented the complainant from working and earning a living as a psychotherapist.

The prohibited conduct complained of is within time as the respondent’s letter to the complainant dated 2 May 2025 stated that separate payments were required for ICP registration and the respondent’s membership fees.

The case referred to the Commission in May 2025 was of discrimination on grounds of age and victimisation in breach of the Equal Status Act 2000.  In written submissions received 6 August 2025, the complainant referred to age and race in the context of submissions on victimisation and having been targeted.   The complainant’s written submissions also expressed the complainant’s dissatisfaction in relation to non-publication of her poem and having been prevented from advertising in the respondent’s weekly advertiser. 

The respondent rejected the allegations against it and disputed the claims made, including those of targeting and exclusionary conduct on its part.

The claims have been referred outside of the period for referral of claims to the Commission.  The communication from the respondent dated 2 May 2025, relied upon the complainant as prohibited conduct within time, is a communication from the respondent that simply restates its position in response to the complainant’s queries.

The respondent is an association of psychotherapists.  Membership of the respondent association is not a requirement to practise as a psychotherapist in Ireland.  Registration with the Irish Council for Psychotherapy (the “ICP”), a separate organisation of which the respondent association is a member, is not a condition of membership with the respondent. 

The respondent’s requirement for two separate cheques in respect of the respondent’s membership fees and ICP registration fees, which is the subject of this complaint to the Commission, was further to a separate fee payment procedure introduced and communicated to all members in December 2021.  The rationale for implementing separate payment arrangements was to reflect the relationship between the respondent and the ICP whereby the respondent was acting as a collection agent for ICP registration fees, and to ensure accurate financial recording and reporting. 

The complainant submitted one cheque for both sets of fees for 2022.  In an email of 10 January 2022, the respondent explained that there needed to be two separate payments and advised that her cheque would be returned by post.  The respondent received a further single cheque from the complainant for both sets of fees.  The respondent emailed the complainant on 9 February 2022 again explaining that there needed to be separate payment as the fees did not go into the same bank account.  On 31 March 2022, the respondent advised the complainant that her membership fee for the respondent for 2022 was overdue and that her membership would cease if not paid that day.  A link to facilitate payment by debit or credit card was provided.  The complainant’s membership with the respondent lapsed thereafter due to non-payment of membership fees.

The respondent provided documentary evidence of its application of the payment of fees procedure to other members who had submitted a single cheque, of membership suspensions for non-payment of fees and of its efforts to assist the complainant in relation to these matters and various other matters.

The complainant’s accreditation with the respondent expired on 21 October 2022 and no application for re-accreditation was received by the respondent.   Accreditation is a condition of membership and is also a condition for representing oneself as a member of the respondent and using related postnominals.  The complainant continues to advertise to the public as a member of the respondent and has refused to cease doing so.  

The same process for payment of membership fees was applied to everyone.  The respondent provided notice of the change in payment procedure in advance and anyone who experienced difficulties in making payment was supported by the respondent. The respondent’s systems do not record anyone’s date of birth. 

The respondent provided a substantive response to the matters raised in the complainant’s written submissions concerning non-publication of a poem and placement of an advertisement.

The claims referred to the Commission were of direct discrimination on grounds of age and victimisation, contrary to the Equal Status Act 2000, as amended, (the “Act”).  The complaint form detailed the discrimination as ongoing.

Section 21 of the Act places procedural obligations on a complainant regarding notification of their complaint to a respondent prior to referring a case to the Commission, and provides timeframes in relation to a case referral.

Section 21(2) requires a complainant, within two months after the prohibited conduct is alleged to have occurred or its last such occurrence, to notify the respondent in writing of the nature of the allegation and of their intention to seek redress under the Act if not satisfied by any reply received.  Section 21(3)(a) provides that, on the complainant’s application, the Commission may extend the two-month time limit to four months for reasonable cause, or exceptionally, may disregard the time limit requirement.

As per section 21(6) of the Act, save for reasonable cause, a claim for redress in respect of prohibited conduct must be referred to the Commission within 6 months of the date of alleged occurrence or, as the case may be, the date of its most recent occurrence.

Section 21(11) of the Act addresses the date on which discrimination occurs where the conduct complained of is not a once-off incident but continues over a period.  Section 21(11) provides as follows:-

“For the purposes of this section prohibited conduct occurs-

(a)   if the act constituting it extends over a period, at the end of the period,

(b)   if it arises by virtue of a provision which operates over a period, throughout the period.”

The complainant notified the respondent of their complaint by an ES.1 form dated 9 May 2025 and referred the case to the Commission on the same date. The respondent replied to the notification by an ES.2 form dated 9 June 2025.

The complainant did not apply for an extension, or disposal insofar as notification requirements are concerned, of the timeframes set out above as the complainant’s case was that the respondent’s correspondence of 2 May 2025 was an occurrence of prohibited conduct within the meaning of the Act and that the prohibited conduct is ongoing. 

The alleged prohibited conduct arises from the respondent’s implementation of a new payments procedure for the respondent’s membership fees and ICP registration fees, which was explained and notified to members in December 2021.  The complainant submitted one cheque in January 2022 for the respondent’s membership fee and ICP registration fee for 2022.  The respondent emailed the complainant on 10 January 2022 explaining that payment must be sent in two cheques and advising of return by post of the complainant’s cheque.  The complainant submitted a single cheque again in February 2022, and the respondent again contacted the complainant setting out the need for separate payment of the relevant fees and explaining the rationale for this.  The complaint of victimisation relates to the respondent’s notification of membership lapse of 31 January 2022, membership suspension on 5 April 2022, and expiry of accreditation on 21 October 2022.

The respondent submitted evidence of the application of its amended fee payments procedure for 2022, which showed a consistent and uniform approach to the separate collection of ICP registration fees and the respondent’s membership fees, and evidence of cessation of membership in the event of non-payment of membership fees.

On the complainant’s own account, the issue before the Commission and the complainant’s dispute with the respondent have been in process since December 2021.  The complainant further accepted at the hearing that issues raised in her written submissions about her poem not having been accepted for publication and non-placement of an advertisement in the respondent’s weekly advertiser occurred in September 2021 and February 2022 respectively.

I note that a legal representative for the complainant wrote to the respondent on 3 March 2022 in relation to matters the subject of the within complaint to the Commission.

I do not accept the complainant’s submission that the respondent’s correspondence dated 2 May 2025 constitutes an occurrence of prohibited conduct within the statutory timeframe for referral of a case to the Commission, nor do I accept that the impugned conduct in 2022 continued over a period of time or that it is continuing.  My finding in this regard is based on a careful examination of the communications between the parties from 2022 onwards and having regard in particular to section 21(6) and 21(11) of the Act.  I am satisfied that the communications reflect the complainant revisiting the respondent’s non-acceptance of her cheque in 2022 and calling upon the respondent to rectify this, and the respondent’s reiteration of its position and explanation as to why the complainant’s cheques were returned in January and February 2022.  The respondent’s letter dated 2 May 2025 is in response to a communication from the complainant and reaffirms the respondent’s payment of fees procedure in 2022.  I am unable to find that an explanation or restatement of position concerning conduct in issue amounts to a further occurrence or re-occurrence of the impugned conduct so as to ground a within time claim.  If this were the case, claims extinguished by the passage of time could be revived and the timeframe provisions in section 21 of the Act would be rendered meaningless and unclear.

By reason of the nature of the communications between the parties, as referred to above, and the information before me, I am also satisfied that there is no continuum or ongoing discrimination within the meaning of section 21(11) of the Act.   The complainant’s submission that she was continually in dispute with the respondent over the issue does not make it a continuum of prohibited conduct on the part of the respondent over a period.  The communications were sporadic between 2022 and May 2025 and whilst the complainant maintains continued exclusion and victimisation, the information before me is that the complainant did not submit any further application for membership of the respondent association after 1 April 2022 or for re-accreditation after October 2022.  The complainant has not been a member of the respondent association since 2022, although she continues to use its postnominals indicating membership. 

Therefore, in circumstances where I find that the conduct the subject of the complainant’s claims to the Commission occurred in 2022, I further find that the complainant did not comply with the statutory notification procedure and that the claim for redress was referred to the Commission outside of the statutory timeframes set out in section 21(6) of the Act. 

My findings on the jurisdictional issues means that the complainant’s case cannot succeed. 

For the reasons set out above, I find that the claims against the respondent are statute-barred. 

Accordingly, my decision is that the claims against the respondent under the Equal Status Act 2000, as amended, are not well founded.

Equal Status Act – Discrimination – Age – Victimisation – Time limits