Case Number: DEC-S2016-009. Workplace Relations Commission

• Judgment Date: 01 February 2016
• Year: 2016
• Docket Number: DEC-S2016-009
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Parties: Mr. DZ and Mr. TP -V- An Insurance Company

EQUAL STATUS ACTS DECISION NO. DEC-S2016-009 PARTIES Mr. DZ and Mr. TP AND An Insurance Company File reference: ES/2014/0097 & 0098 Date of issue: 22nd February 2016

HEADNOTES: Equal Status Acts – Race – provision of service

1. Dispute

This dispute concerns a claim by Mr. DZ and Mr.TP that they were discriminated against by an Insurance Company, IC, on the grounds of racial origin contrary to section 5 of the Equal Status Acts.

1.2 The complainants referred their claim against the Insurance Company to the Director of the Equality Tribunal under the Equal Status Acts on 29th May 2014. On 5th November 2015 in accordance with section 25 of the Equal Status Act 2000 to 2004, the Director General General of the Workplace Relations Commission delegated the case to me, Michael McEntee, an Adjudication Officer/Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director General on which date the investigation under Section 25 commenced. Submissions were received from both sides and as part of my investigation I proceeded to a hearing on the 10th November 2015.

1.3 This decision is issued by me following the establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission on 1 October 2015, as an Adjudication Officer who was an Equality Officer prior to 1 October 2015, in accordance with section 83 (3) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015.

2 Complainant’s submission

2.1 On 10th March 2014 the Complainants went to the Branch office of IC to alter some motor vehicle details. They were served by Mr.P and in the course of the conversation they alleged that Mr. P asked some inappropriate questions in relation to who was driving the motor vehicle and from when. They became upset, cancelled their Insurance Policy and left the Office.

Later in the day they returned to change their mind, renew their policy, and were served by another IC employee Mr. X.

On the 25th March 2014 the Complainants returned to the IC Office. Mr.P. did not serve them on this occasion – he retired to the back office when he should have attended to them according to their place in the queue. They asked Mr. P why he was not serving them and he directed them to another IC staff member. He confirmed verbally that he was not serving them and he ignored them thereafter.

The Complainants felt upset, embarrassed and discriminated against by the public actions of Mr.P.

3: Respondents Submission

3:1 The basic facts were as stated. Mr. DZ and Mr.TP did enter the Regional Office to renew/alter details on a motor insurance policy on the 10th March 2014. Mr.P. had served them and considerable inappropriate language was used by the Complainant, Mr. TP, in the hearing of Mr.P.

Later that day they returned and were served by another employee and the insurance policy was renewed.

3:2 On the 25th March 2014 the Complainants again visited the Office and approached Mr.P. He declined to serve them and directed them to wait until another staff member became available. His actions were motivated by a fear of verbal and physical intimidation arising from the alleged behaviour of the Complainants on the 10th March.

3:3 Mr. McD, a colleague of Mr.P, who was present in the office on the 25th March 2014 confirmed the evidence of Mr.P in relation...