Case Number: ADJ-00031944. Workplace Relations Commission

• Docket Number: ADJ-00031944
• Date: 17 December 2021
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Respondent: Workplace Relations Commission

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00031944

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Francis Eneas Kearney	Workplace Relations Commission

Representatives Self-represented Cathy Smith, SC

Complaint:

Act	Complaint Reference No.	Date of Receipt & Registration
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000	CA-00042596-001	03/01/2021 and 19/01/2021

Dates of Adjudication Hearing: 13/5/2021 and 28/10/2021

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham

Procedure:

On the 3rd January 2021, the complainant submitted a complaint by email pursuant to the Equal Status Act. This was registered on the 19th January 2021. The complaint was initially heard remotely at adjudication on the 13th May 2021. Because of technical reasons, the online hearing could not be completed. The hearing was then re-scheduled to in-person hearing, which took place on the 28th October 2021.

The complainant attended the adjudication and gave the affirmation. The respondent was represented by Cathy Smith, SC and two witnesses attended on its behalf. One witness, the centre manager, gave evidence and was affirmed.

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 be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

I have added a cover letter to this decision. This is my letter to the complainant, explaining the decision and what it means for him. I have written this in an accessible way, to bring together the important legal issues arising in his case and summarising how I came to conclusions. It appears in the online version as the last past of the decision, but it was the first page in the version posted to the parties. It forms part of this decision.

Background:

The complaint relates to interactions the complainant had with the respondent, the Workplace Relations Commission, in seeking to bring other Equal Status complaints. The complaint relates to direct and indirect discrimination and harassment on grounds of disability. The respondent denies the claims. The Equal Status Act requires a claimant to ‘seek redress’ or to ‘make a claim’ to the Workplace Relations Commission. Prior to taking this step, a claimant is required to notify the respondent of the allegation and the intention to seek redress under the Act (the notification requirement can be dispensed with.) Both steps – ‘seeking redress’ and ‘notifying the respondent’ are set out in the Equal Status Act and are mandatory (subject to notification being dispensed with). The WRC has prepared documents to cater for both steps: the WRC complaint form and the ES1 form. The forms themselves are not mandatory.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant outlined that he established Medical Negligence Ireland in 2019 to help people with disabilities. He outlined that he wished to take a case against a newspaper as it had published a story without his consent. He said that the newspaper had degraded him. He outlined that this complaint was submitted to the Workplace Relations Commission well before the summer of 2020. He re-sent the complaint in October 2020. In respect of the respondent, the complainant outlined that the process was not up to scratch and needed to be improved. It was hard to contact the respondent by phone. He had submitted complaints to the respondent and had been asked to provide addresses. He said that the addresses were well-known, and he should not have had to provide them. He was then sent out about 20 full complaint forms and there were about 1,000 pages. The complainant outlined that in one phone conversation, the employee of the respondent had hung up the phone. He had phoned the respondent after receiving a letter from the WRC to say that the ES1 form was mandatory. He had wanted to check whether this was the case. In the phone call, the respondent employee told the complainant that the ES1 form was mandatory. The complainant outlined that it was frustrating for him to make phone calls as he is deaf. He outlined that he could not manage the pitch of his voice and he, therefore, had a loud voice. He said that the manager phoned him after the first phone call ended and the manager apologised. The complainant said that he wanted the ES1 form to be ‘abolished’. While he had received the multiple copies of the complaint form, he had not used them, and his complaints were later all processed. He outlined that the complaint against the newspaper was 100% complete and should have been processed without being referred back to him. The complainant outlined that the respondent had asked for more information. He believed that they did not need this additional information. He had supplied the address of the newspaper but not of other public bodies. The complainant outlined that the complaint of harassment related to the impact on him of getting all the complaint forms, as well as the phone call. He acknowledged that the majority of people he spoke with on the phone were decent and very helpful. He outlined that there should be fewer automated emails and more communication with people bringing cases. The complainant said that the first flaw was being told that the ES1 form was mandatory. The second was being sent 1,000 pages of complaint forms. He outlined that an apology was due to him for the phone call. The fourth flaw was being asked to produce unnecessary information. There should not be a statute of limitation to restrict people making complaints. There was also confusion regarding the place of the Equal Status Act in the Workplace Relations Commission, as the Equal Status Act was for service users and not employees. He cited an example where a hospital manager had replied to his Equal Status complaint by saying that he was not an employee. The complainant said that the respondent had said he had made complaints against a body when this was not him. The complainant accepted that everyone could make errors but there was a need to stop discrimination. The Equal Status Act was the only avenue open to many people.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

At the outset of the hearing, the respondent accepted that it provided a service within the ambit of the Equal Status Act. It also...