Case Number: DEC-S2017-040. Workplace Relations Commission
| Judgment Date | 01 November 2017 |
| Court | Workplace Relations Commission |
| Docket Number | DEC-S2017-040 |
| Parties | ISAAC 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 18th 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 Acts.
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, incident, witness, 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 represented himself and was also assisted by the three siblings Mr Enoch Burke, Ms Ammi Burke and Ms Kezia Burke, referred to above, as well as his 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 objections and upon my response would allow the case to proceed; the complainant and those assisting him, regularly refused to proceed and sought clarification on a continuous basis to questions that I put to him and to the respondent. On occasion his response to questions put to him was that he had already answered the question and would not repeat his answer. On at least two occasions he seemed to imply that he objected to my objectivity in hearing the case but did not furnish specifics around same nor did he request myself to recuse myself but merely he repeated that he 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 he was given ample opportunity to present his claims and such objections and interruptions, did not affect my investigation of his claims.
This dispute concerns claims by Mr Isaac Burke (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) that he was discriminated against by National University of Ireland Galway (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) on the grounds of his religion and that the respondent allowed him to be harassed on the grounds of his religion and that the respondent treated him unlawfully by victimising him contrary to the Equal Status Acts in relation to what will be referred to, for ease of reference, 6 Categories of complaints and within each of the categories are 27 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, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 25)
Item 1 relates to a complaint to the security of the respondent on 5th March 2013, regarding another student who it was alleged ripped down the complainant’s Christian Union Society poster.
Item 2 relates to an email sent to head of security of the respondent on 30th October 2013 regarding a student ripping down his Christian Society poster.
Item 3 relates to an email sent to head of security of the respondent on 1st November 2013 regarding posters being ripped down.
Item 4 relates to a complaint sent to Vice President for Student Experience on 1st November 2013 regarding defacement of posters.
Item 5 relates to a complaint sent to Vice President of Student Experience on 3rd December 2013 naming a student who was seen ripping down the complainant’s Christian Union Society posters.
Item 6 relates to a complaint sent to Vice President of Student Experience on 17th February 2014 regarding posters being ripped down.
Item 7 relates to an email sent to Acting Disciplinary Officer on 18th February 2014 advising of posters being ripped down and a subsequent picket.
Item 8 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 9 relates to a meeting of the University Societies Coordination Group (USCG) to hear a complaint regarding the ripping down of posters and suppression of free speech on 12th March 2014.
Item 25 regarding complainant’s posters ripped down at an event on the right to life of children with Down Syndrome, organised by the Life Society on 15th October 2014 and which the complainant is a member of the committee.
Category B
Complaints regarding the Student Union same sex marriage referendum and that the complainant was discriminated and harassed (Item 10, 11 & 12)
Item 10 relates to a complaint that the Christian Union Society information table was vandalised on 12th March 2014, the Gardaí were called, the information table was shut down and the Head of Security tore Christian Union posters.
Item 11 relates to a complaint that on 12 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 he became unwell both physically and psychologically because of this.
Item 12 relates to a press release released by the complainant on 13th March 2014, as a committee member of the Christian Union requesting the University to call off the referendum on same-sex marriage.
Category C
Complaints to security regarding harassment and abuse and that the complainant was discriminated against and harassed (Item 13)
Item 13 relates to a complaint of harassment and abuse to security on 13th March 2014 while canvassing for the Student Union Post-graduate elections.
Category D
Complaints regarding the Disciplinary action taken against the complainant and that the complainant was discriminated and victimised (Items 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23 & 24)
Item 14 relates to a letter from Academic Secretary on 26th May 2014 regarding a picket in relation to Item 7 against the complainant.
Item 15 relates to a letter on 18th June 2014 asking that the complainant’s complaints be also dealt with.
Item 16 relates to a disciplinary hearing that was adjourned on 23rd June 2014.
Item 17 relates to attendance at a disciplinary hearing on 23rd June 2014 and the failure to advise the complainant that the person who had made the complaint was not in attendance.
Item 18 relates to submitted evidence on 2nd July 2014 to Academic Secretary in advance of a rescheduled hearing and advised that it was deferred indefinitely.
Item 19 relates to sending a letter on 15th August 2014 to the Academic Secretary outlining concerns as to the fairness of the disciplinary process.
Item 22 relates to the respondent’s refusal on 18th September 2014 to reschedule the hearing of the disciplinary committee.
Item 23 regarding a formal reprimand...
To continue reading
Request your trial