ADJ-00051808 - Workplace Relations Commission Tina Berry V Phoenix Inn Limited t/a Kestrel House

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 14 November 2024
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Year: 2024

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00051808

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Tina Berry	Phoenix Inn Limited t/a Kestrel House

Representatives Saoirse Kelly, B.L., Instructed by Daly Khurshid Solicitors LLP Siobhan Clabby, B.L., instructed by BCM Solicitors

Complaint(s):

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21Equal Status Act, 2000	CA-00063190-001	30/04/2024

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 15/10/2024

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint. At the hearing a number of preliminary issues and adjourned on the basis that the Adjudication Officer would consider the matter and made a decision to adjourn the matter in order to allow time for other proceedings to conclude or make a decision in relation to the jurisdiction of the Workplace Relations Commission in this matter.

While the parties are named in this document, from here on, I will refer to Tina Berry as “the Complainant” and to Phoenix Inn Ltd (t/a Kestrel Inn) as “the Respondent.”

The parties were advised in a letter confirming details of the hearing that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer on 06/04/2021 that hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public. That may result in decisions no longer being anonymised. The parties were advised that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence on oath or affirmation.

The Respondent was represented by Ms Siobhan Clabby, B.L., instructed by BCM Solicitors. Mr Michael McGowan also attended the hearing on behalf of the Respondent.

The Complainant attended the hearing and was represented by Ms Saoirse Kelly, B.L. instructed by Khurshid Solicitors LLP.

Background:

This matter came before the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 30/04/2024 as a complaint pursuant to the Section 21 of the Equal Status Act, 2000. The Complainant alleges discrimination on the grounds of Membership of the Travelling community. The Respondent submits that the Workplace Relations Commission does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent raised a number of preliminary matters: It was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that the WRC does not have jurisdiction in this matter by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 19 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act. The Statutory Instrument [S.I. 362/2003 – Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003 (Commencement Order 2003)] gave effect to the decision to transfer jurisdiction of Equal Status Act complaints to the District Court. The Respondent wishes to make an application for this matter to be dismissed taking into account that the Complainant is on notice that the Respondent is a licenced premises and has already commenced proceedings in the District Court. The District Court made a decision in relation to the burden of proof and the Complainant has appealed this to the High Court. If the High Court overturns that decision the matter will be remitted back to the District Court and not the WRC. The Respondent also submits that there are a number of previous cases before the WRC where the WRC has declined jurisdiction. The following cases were cited by the Respondent’s representative: ADJ-00045069; ADJ-00047351 and ADJ-00046239. In the event that the Adjudication Officer decided otherwise than to dismiss this matter It is the Respondent’s position that this is one of 10 cases currently before the District Court and it is not tenable that the Respondent is expected to defend the same cases before the WRC and incur costs associated with this.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:...