ADJ-00020658 - Workplace Relations Commission Complainant v Public Body

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 14 August 2023
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00020658

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised parties	Complainant	Public Body

Representatives Self-represented Self-represented

Complaint:

Act	Complaint Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000	CA-00027276-001	20/03/2019

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham

Procedure:

On the 20th March 2019, the complainant referred a complaint of discrimination and victimisation on grounds of disability. The case was variously scheduled for in-person hearing and then a remote hearing. It was then proposed that the complaint be decided by written submissions only, per section 25(2A) of the Equal Status Act. Neither party objected to this within the statutory period.

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

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

In 2018, the complainant applied to the Public Body and attended the appointment in Dublin on the 11th October 2018. This involved the complainant travelling a great distance to Dublin, leaving his home in the south-west at 4.30am. He said that he was treated in an undignified way and ‘put in his place’ by the Public Body. The complainant said that the outcome letter of the 18th December 2018 shunned him in a dismissive way. He described the criteria applied by the Public Body to be vile and causing ‘enforced idleness’. The complainant had been assessed for a Primary Medical Certificate in March 2018, and then appealed to the Public Body. He was discriminated against on grounds of disability and victimised in the manner his appeal was heard and in the way he was treated at the appeal.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

In the 2018, the Public Body outlined that they were very sorry that the complainant’s appeal was unsuccessful. They outlined that the Public Body understood the complainant’s frustration given his long day on the day of assessment. The Acting Chair outlined that it was applying the criteria set out in the Regulations: that the applicant has a severe disability and fall within one of the strict criteria laid out in the Regulations. The Acting Chair said that the complainant did not meet one of the criteria. It advised the complainant of his option to refer the matter to the Ombudsman. In submissions, the respondent relied on section 14 of the Equal Status Act and referred to previous Equality decisions where this was invoked.

Findings and Conclusions:

The complaint relates to the complainant’s application for a Primary Medical Certificate per the Disabled Drivers and Disabled Passengers (Tax Concessions) Regulations, 1994. The Regulations were in place at the time of the complainant’s unsuccessful appeal. The Regulations then in place set out the following criteria: ‘(a) persons who are wholly or almost wholly without the use of both legs; (b) persons wholly without the use of one of their legs and almost wholly without the use of the other leg such that they are severely restricted as to movement of their lower limbs; ...