Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Katelynn  Ward

Made Of Gold Entertainment Limited

Representatives

Aran Grealish BL instructed by Silke and Company Solicitors

 John M. Foley & Company Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000

CA-00057475-001

29/06/2023

The Complainant submits that she was discriminated against by the Respondent as a member of the Travelling community. 

Preliminary Issue:

It was submitted that the named respondent is not the correct named respondent.  The respondent submitted that they were happy to proceed with a decision on the preliminary issue in the first instance. The named respondent submits that they were engaged to perform on 01/01/2023 and to provide music at an event.  It was submitted that they did not have anything to do with engaging the venue or sale of tickets and did not have any personnel at the foyer of the hotel and they never engaged with the complainant and their contract was with the organiser.  It was submitted that other performers performed, unrelated to the respondent and that the respondent did not participate in the event’s management or security arrangements and did not operate reception for ticket sales, did not engage the hotel as a venue, did not engage any overview in relation to persons attending the event, only provided on-stage entertainment and did not come into contact with the complainant.

Evidence of Mr Brian Jordan:

The evidence of Mr Jordan was that he is Director of the named respondent and the principal act is Mr X who is also a director and was booked and attended the event.  Mr X provided 2 hours of entertainment with his band as agreed and has a long-standing relationship and there has never been any complaints.  It was his understanding that the promoter of the event is the Sunday Club who looks after ticket sales and that the named respondent do not advertise the event and that the Sunday Club looks after ticketing.  Other performers were also engaged separate to the named respondent.

Under cross examination Mr Jordan said that the venue was moved to the hotel some time back and it is a very successful event with a long-standing relationship.  It was his understanding that it is advertised by the Sunday Club and details appeared in a newspaper.  He could not speak to the social media page as he is not on social media. Enquiries were made regarding Mr X’s availability as is the norm and it is all done verbally and the account is settled with cash on the night and there is no paper documents exchanged.  When the booking is made the date of the event is entered in the diary at the time it is booked, and Mr X and his band turn up without any further communication as the date is held in the diary.  Mr Jordan received a handwritten receipt after the performance which is the norm confirming the date of the event. 

Under cross examination Mr Jordan said that there was no direct bookings from CP Leisure for Mr X’s performance.

Evidence of Mr Martin Higgins for the Sunday Club:

Mr Higgins gave evidence that he is on the organizing committee of the Sunday Club and that the named respondent had no part in organizing the event and that the Sunday Club was formed as a result of the interest by members in dancing.  The promoter is Mr Y and he moved the event to the Hotel as they got bigger bands and more people became interested in attending.  The venue is very successful and they have a long-standing relationship.  The Sunday Club do not sell alcohol at the event, the hotel do and the licence is CP Leisure Ltd.  The Sunday Club books bands on occasion and that a band was booked which was Mr X’s band and Mr Higgins was responsible for paying the band.  He said they have 3,500 members and they send a text to the members of the events and they put out adverts and asked the Hotel to put it up on social media.  His evidence was that the hotel and the entertainer have nothing to do with organising the event and have no involvement in it as it is organised by the Sunday Club.

Under cross examination Mr Higgins said that he is part of the committee for what is a club and that he is not in receipt of any benefit for organizing the events.  The Sunday Club sent out automatic text messages regarding events and they ask the hotel to promote the event as they not were up to speed on social media.  It is a not for profit club and he does not get payment for his role in the club and that the majority of the money brought in goes towards paying for the band and the hotel.  Mr Higgins said that there is an AGM held and they have a secretary and treasurer and the dancing club is not attached to any national body and that the club’s bank account is in his name c/o Sunday Club.

Preliminary Issue:

In response to the preliminary issue that the named respondent was not the correctly named respondent, the complainant submitted that they were happy to proceed with a decision on the preliminary issue in the first instance.  They submitted that it was their understanding that the named respondent was the correct named respondent and that they had experienced significant difficulties ascertaining the correct respondent owing to the various organisations that had been involved in the musical event.  It was submitted that the respondent was involved in organising and promoting music events and is vicariously liable.  It was submitted that the alleged incident occurred on 01/01/2023 and the complaint was received by the WRC on 29/06/2023.  No evidence or cross examination was taken from the complainant regarding the preliminary issue.

Preliminary Issue:

A preliminary matter in relation to my jurisdiction to hear the substantive complaint was raised regarding whether the correct Respondent was impleaded on the WRC complaint form.  With the agreement of the parties, this decision deals solely with jurisdiction.  The named respondent submits that they are not the correct named respondent for this complaint and the complainant submits that they are.  Parties were advised that if it is found that the named respondent are the correct named respondent then a hearing will be convened to hear the substantive matter.  If it is found that the named respondent are not the correct named respondent then no further hearing will be convened as I would not have jurisdiction to hear the substantive matter.

I note the evidence of Mr Higgins that the named respondent have no involvement with organizing the event and that the named respondent provides an entertainer and that there are on occasion other entertainers who perform at the event.  I also note the evidence of Mr Jordan that there is an informal arrangement whereby he takes a booking on behalf of Mr X of the named respondent who arrives, performs, money is exchanged, a receipt is issued and they depart.   It would appear from all the circumstances of the complaint that the named respondent is not the correct respondent in the complaint. In these circumstances, I find I do not have jurisdiction to hear the substantive matter.

I find that the named respondent is not the correct respondent in the complaint and I do not have jurisdiction to hear the substantive matter.

Preliminary issue, respondent, equal status