Case Number: DEC-S2017-043. Workplace Relations Commission
| Judgment Date | 01 November 2017 |
| Year | 2017 |
| Docket Number | DEC-S2017-043 |
| Court | Workplace Relations Commission |
| Parties | AMMI BURKE AND NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND GALWAY |
HEADNOTES: Equal Status Acts – Religion – Victimisation - Harassment 1.0 DISPUTE
The complainant referred claims to the Director of the Equality Tribunal under the Equal Status Acts on 22nd September 2014, 7th November 2014 and 9th January 2015. In accordance with powers under Section 75 of the Acts the Director delegated the complaint to me, Louise Boyle, an Equality Officer, on 12 October 2016 for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part III of the Equal Status Act.
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 84 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015.
As required by Section 25(1) and as part of my investigation, I proceeded to hearings on the 28th October 2016, 8th December 2016, 3rd March 2017, 15th March 2017, 16th March 2017 and 12th May 2017.
In this claim the submissions were substantial with copious volume of documentation and oral evidence was heard over six days and, whilst I will not be referring to every letter, witness, incident or event or reference every case law presented, I have taken into account all the submissions including oral, written and visual media, made to me in the course of my investigation as well as the evidence presented at the hearing.
As three siblings of the complainant had similar complaints, their complaints were also heard over the same days for which separate decisions have been issued.
The complainant was mostly represented by her brother Mr Isaac Burke but assisted by the complainant and her two siblings Mr Enoch Burke and Ms Kezia Burke referred to above, as well as her mother who was in attendance with the consent of the Respondent.
During the six days of hearing I had cause to interrupt both the complainant and the respondent on a number of occasions. This occurred when I considered their means of adducing evidence as long-winded, laborious or deviated from the questions put to them. This is not unusual in cases and more so where both sides present copious documentation, when many preliminary points are raised, where there are many witnesses in attendance and/or the hearings are spread over many days; all of which applied in this case. While the norm might be for the respondent or complainant to raise their objection and upon my response would allow the case to proceed; the complainant and those assisting her, regularly refused to proceed and sought clarification on a continuous basis to questions that I put to her and to the respondent. On occasion her response to questions put to her was that she had already answered the question and would not repeat her answer. On at least two occasions she seemed to imply that she objected to my objectivity in hearing the case but did not furnish specifics around same nor did she request myself to recuse myself but merely repeated that she did not have an issue with the case proceeding. Such continuous interjections and discussions led to further delays and the need to adjourn on occasions. Part of the role of an Equality Officer, in following fair procedures, is to ensure each claim is heard fully but expeditiously.
The two are not mutually exclusive but sometimes require the cooperation of the parties to ensure it happens. On occasion, it was difficult to secure the cooperation of the complainant, however, I am satisfied that she was given ample opportunity to present her claims and such objections and interruptions, did not affect my investigation of her claims.
This dispute concerns claims by Ms Ammi Burke (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) that she was discriminated against by National University of Ireland Galway (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) on the grounds of her religion and that the respondent allowed her to be harassed on the grounds of her religion and that the respondent treated her unlawfully by victimising her contrary to the Equal Status Acts in relation to what will be referred to, for ease of reference, 4 Categories of complaints and within the categories a total of 9 Items of complaints, which were categorised/itemised as such at the hearing by the complainant and are detailed below:
Category A:
Complaints regarding Posters and that the complainant was discriminated and harassed (Items 1, 2, 7)
Item 1 relates to a complaint that on 18th February 2014 a student ripped down Life Society posters.
Item 2 relates to a hardcopy report outlining 10 breaches of the poster policy sent to Disciplinary Office, General Manager of Students Union and Societies Officer on 3rd March 2014.
Item 7 regarding complainant’s posters ripped down at an event on the right to life of children with Down Syndrome held on 15th October 2014, organised by the Life Society which the complainant is a committee member of.
Category B
Complaints regarding the Student Union same sex marriage referendum and that the complainant was discriminated and harassed (Item 4, 5 & 6)
Item 3 relates to a complaint that on 12th March 2014, the Christian Union Society information table was vandalised, the Gardaí were called, the information table was shut down and the Head of Security tore Christian Union posters.
Item 4 relates to a complaint that on 12th March 2014, the complainant was defamed, slandered, bullied, intimidated and harassed by students of NUIG and others both in person and online via social media and other media sites with no action taken by the respondent to curtail it and furthermore that she became unwell both physically and psychologically as a result.
Category E
Complaints regarding the USCG’s Regulations for Student Societies and that the complainant was discriminated against (Items 5, 6 & 8)
Item 5 relates to a regulation passed by USCG on 5th September 2014
detailing that societies need to sign up at least 100 members on Societies Day.
Item 6 relates to a regulation passed by USCG on 5th September 2014 detailing that some societies must be affiliated to an external organisation
Item 8 relates to the 100-member’s regulation on 5th September 2014 and a claim that it compromises the Christian Union Society and Life Society ethos which the complainant was a member of.
Category F
Complaint regarding the USCG decision to disbar the complainant from active membership of all societies and that the complainant was discriminated and victimised (Item 9).
Item 9 regarding notice of being disbarred from active membership of all societies on 10th November 2014 and the failure of the complainant’s appeal on 22nd December 2014.
2.0 PRELIMINARY ISSUESSeveral preliminary issues were raised:
2.1 Religion
It was claimed by the respondent that the complainant had failed to show the nature of her religion
2.2 Notification & Time Limits
It was claimed that the respondent had not been notified in writing with regard to some of the complaints and that some of the complaints were out of time.
2.3 Law Applicable to Educational Establishments
This preliminary issue was withdrawn by the respondent.
2.1.1 Religion
Religion – Respondent Submission
The respondent details that the complainant has not stated what religion she is other than that she says that she has Christian beliefs. They detail that it is not sufficient to allege a protected ground and treatment complained of and that she must show also that she has been treated differently than a comparator of a different religion or belief and that generalised complaints about freedom of expression, freedom of speech or defamation are not within the jurisdiction of the Acts.
Religion – Complainant’s Submission
The complainant details that her religion is such that she is a Christian who is evangelical and who holds to the scriptures as the ultimate authority for the believer. She outlines the key tenets of her faith are high regard for the authority of scripture including regard to the sanctity of life and the sacrament of marriage, a belief in atonement with God as being through the saving death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the necessity of individual conversion and the necessity of spreading the Gospel. As...
To continue reading
Request your trial