Case Number: DEC-S2018-021. Workplace Relations Commission
| Judgment Date | 01 November 2018 |
| Year | 2018 |
| Docket Number | DEC-S2018-021 |
| Court | Workplace Relations Commission |
| Parties | Timothy Simon Couzens and Seleni Sewart, Thomas Sewart, Lucy Couzens and Samuel Couzens (all suing through their next friend Timothy Simon Couzens) V Ryanair DAC |
1.1 On the 18th January and the 11th October 2013, the complainants referred complaints against the respondent. On the 28th October 2016, in accordance with his powers under section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission delegated the case to me, Kevin Baneham, an Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director General under section 25 of the Acts, on which date my investigation commenced. In accordance with section 25(1) and as part of my investigation I proceeded to a hearing on two dates.
1.2 The first-named complainant (the “complainant”) attended the hearing dates. Martin Hayden, SC with Frank Beatty SC instructed by Maples and Calder Solicitors represented the respondent. One witness gave evidence for the respondent. This decision is issued by me following the establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission on the 1st October 2015, as an Adjudication Officer who was an Equality Officer prior to the 1st October 2015, in accordance with section 83(3) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015.
- Submissions and evidence of the complainants:
2.1 The first-named complainant (the “complainant”) referred to his detailed, written submissions as well as to the newspaper articles. His claim related to both direct and indirect discrimination on grounds of race. The respondent’s terms and conditions state that cases should be taken in Ireland. The complainant outlined that on the 1st January 2013 he booked seven sets of return airline tickets for travel between London Stansted and Zadar, Croatia. The outward journeys would take place on the 28th July 2013 and the return on the 11th August 2013. He paid £2,378.32 sterling for the flights. The following day, he realised that he had been overcharged by £444 because he was charged in sterling for the return flights. He notified the respondent of this and later submitted the Equal Status complaints.
2.2 The complainant acknowledged that on the 15th January 2013, the respondent offered to reimburse the difference. He accepted this offer and the monies were refunded to him. There was a further email correspondence which went into ‘spam’. The respondent later sought to charge back the amount of €444.73. The complainant said that he refunded the money under duress and under the threat of costs. He commented that the status of the flights changed while on holiday. This was put down to a computer glitch. He felt that he had been treated with scorn and contempt and was under threat from the respondent. The complainant also claimed victimisation and harassment.
2.3 In respect of jurisdiction, the complainant submitted that Croatia was not a member of the European Union at the time he booked the flights. EU Equality law required a no cost or low cost means of lodging claims of discrimination, including relating to air travel. The complainant said that there were complaints had on behalf of two his children (who were under 18) and two step-children, who were under 18 at the time of the complaints. The complainant said that the newspaper articles were relevant as evidence of discrimination in the UK. The Huffington post article of the 31st October 2012 was written about a UK passenger challenging having to pay fee for not printing out her boarding card. The reference to ‘Bloody English’ was evidence of the respondent’s scorn and disrespect for UK passengers. The article from the Telegraph of the 7th May 2015 showed how the respondent required UK customers to pay more in fares and fees.
2.4 The complainant outlined that when he first made the booking, he was not aware of the issue of paying for the return flights in sterling. He had not checked booking the flights as one-way flights. The problem with booking two sets of one-way flights is if the first set of flights are cancelled, you cannot cancel the return one-way flights to your point of origin. The complainant said that the respondent had repaid £444.73 but then sought this back in April 2013. He emailed the respondent’s solicitors to say that he had not received the wrongly dated letter of the 17th April 2013 as it had gone into spam. He challenged the allegation that he was not telling the truth. He later became aware that he had received two emails dated the 15th April 2013 and the one relating to the amount of £444.73 and the obligation for confidentiality went into spam.
2.5 In cross-examination, it was put to the complainant that it was clear from the email of the 15th April 2013 that the settlement was based on confidentiality; he acknowledged receiving the letter of the 15th April 2013 but he had not received the second letter, the one starting “we acknowledge receipt”. The complainant outlined that he made a counter-offer in this email of the 16th April 2013 to the first letter. He had not known that the respondent had not accepted his counter-offer as their replying email had gone into spam. It was put to the complainant that the first email of the 15th April 2013 does not mention the amount of £444.73 so how could his email include this amount unless he received both emails; he replied that the amount was the difference between the euro and sterling fares. It was put to the complainant that both letters refer to confidentiality while only one refers to the amount of £444.73; he replied that he may have mixed the letters up.
2.6 In closing submissions, the complainant outlined that he advanced this case on his behalf and on behalf of the travellers who were then children. The respondent’s terms and conditions stated that complaints should be brought in Ireland. He further referred to section 46 of the Equal Status Act regarding the application of the Act to aircraft registered in Ireland. He was complaining of discrimination in having to pay in the currency of the point of departure. The complainant said that the price of the return fare was the same as the price charged on the first flight. He would have paid a lower fare had euro been charged for the return flights. He said that he had been victimised by the threat of legal costs as well as the respondent’s conduct, including calling him a liar. The respondent could have inspected the spam folder of the email account and he may have got the letters mixed up. There was also victimisation in how the respondent sought to recover the amount of £444.73 from a different credit card and amended the booking to say it was unconfirmed. He repaid the £444.73 under protest as he had been told that they could not fly unless it was repaid. In respect of the harassment complaint, the complainant said that the respondent’s tone had been intimidatory, in particular with regard to his counter-offer. The threat of costs was still terrifying, even at the end of the second day of hearing. They were wary when travelling to Croatia as the return booking had changed and was marked unconfirmed. It was upsetting that the respondent treated people who complain in this way.
- Submissions and evidence of the respondent:
3.1 At the outset of the hearing, the respondent raised several preliminary points. The first related to the number and identity of complainants. The respondent submitted that the multiple complainants stated on the complaint forms were not mentioned in the ES1 form and only mentioned in submissions. It submitted that there was only one complainant to this case. The complainant could not advance the complaints on behalf of other adults or the children who were now over 18.
3.2 The respondent made the preliminary submission that the complaints should have been advanced in the UK and not in Ireland. They related to a UK customer booking flights from the UK to and from Croatia. The respondent submitted that the complainant had a remedy available in the UK. The respondent’s terms and conditions could not...
To continue reading
Request your trial