Case Number: ADJ-00017318. Workplace Relations Commission.

• Docket Number: ADJ-00017318
• Hearing Date: 11 December 2018
• Date: 01 February 2019
• Year: 2019
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Parties: Claimant v Property Management Company

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and 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.

Background:

The complainant is alleging that she was discriminated against by the respondent on grounds of race in relation to the provision of a service. The complainant is an Italian national.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant is the owner of an apartment in a development complex where the respondent is the property management company who manages and maintains the development. The management company issued correspondence by e-mail on 6 July 2018 to the complainant regarding an alleged breach of House Rules and in particular Rule 6 which states as follows “6. Washing/Laundry – Washing must not be hung out to dry on balconies or from windows, as provided for in the Lease Agreements.” The complainant stated that she had shaken the duvet from her bed and it would only have been left momentarily at the window while she made the bed and therefore did not breach the House Rules. The complainant states that she received a further e-mail on 9th July as follows; “I’m sorry to say this but you’re not being helpful to the aesthetics of the development with your Italian habit of hanging out your bed linen. If all the residents were to do this, the development would take on the look of a ghetto. I’ve attached the latest photo I received concerning another infringement. We’re asking for your co-operation in this matter”. The complainant maintains that she was shocked and upset by this e-mail. The complainant states that previously she had brought issues to the management company in relation to other residents leaving items left out on balconies and green areas and anti-social behaviour but nothing was done about these issues. The complainant states that on 9th August she received a further e-mail notifying her that she had again hung washing out and had placed her duvet out the window and she was given a fine of €250 in respect of same. The complainant maintains that somebody is watching over her windows daily and taking pictures and reporting her to the management company for hanging out laundry. The complainant states that other residents breach house rules and no one was ever fined for same. The complainant is alleging that she has been subjected to discrimination on grounds of her race by the respondent company.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent states that it is a property management company and has managed and maintained multiple developments across the Leinster region for many years. The respondent submits that the complainant’s claim is statute barred pursuant to section 21(2) of the Acts. The respondent accepts that the complainant furnished it with Form ES.1 and ES.2 by e-mail on 17th July 2018 notifying it of her belief that she had been subjected to unlawful treatment by way of two e-mails that she had received from the respondent on 6th July and 9th July 2018, the content of which she alleges was offensive and discriminatory on the grounds of race. However, the respondent submits that having received the e-mail with the forms attached at 12.03 pm on 17th July, it replied at 1.06 pm and strongly denied the allegations which it confirmed would be equally strongly defended. The respondent asserts that in response, the complainant confirmed by e-mail that she was not proceeding with the complaint. The respondent contends that it was clear therefore that the complainant had confirmed that she was not seeking redress under the Acts and in such circumstances, the requirements set out in section 21(2) have not been met. The respondent submits that accordingly the complaint is statute barred and must be dismissed. Subsequently, the respondent states that the complainant resurrected her complaint directly in response to a fine levied on her under the development’s House Rules on 9thAugust last. The respondent submits that the complainant failed to notify the respondent as required. The respondent is aware that the complainant inserted a hand written note dated 9th August 2018 on to the copy of the ES1/ES2 forms which she submitted to the WRC as part of her complaint. In this hand written note, the complainant appears to take issue with the fine, levied on...