Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Katelynn  Ward

Sheerwater Hotel

Representatives

Aran Grealish BL instructed by Leonard  Silke and 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-00057476-001

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 above named respondent does not have the licence for the bar in the Hotel and were not involved in organizing the event as it is organized by the Sunday Club and is nothing to do with the Hotel and that a rental fee is paid to the Hotel for the event and that the event is advertised as a members only event.  The respondent submitted that the statute of limitations may have expired on the complaint.

The evidence of Mr Jerry Power was that the named respondent did not organise the event, that the named respondent is a trading name and that the organiser is the Sunday Club.

The evidence of Ms Deirdre Neill is that the named respondent did not organise the event, that the named respondent is a trading name and that the organiser is the Sunday Club.

Evidence of Mr Martin Higgins for the Sunday Club

Mr Higgins gave evidence that he is on the organising 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 send 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 event took place at the hotel and that the question arises as to who employs those at the Sunday Club.  It was submitted that the respondent was involved in organising and promoting music events and is vicariously liable and that their social media pages reference the respondent’s involvement and that the respondent had an opportunity to identify the Sunday Club early on in proceedings but did not do so.  It was submitted that the alleged incident occurred on 01/01/2023 and that the complaint was received by the WRC on 29/06/2023.  It was submitted that the complaint form is not a statutory form and that the named respondent is not prejudiced.  It was not disputed that the named respondent does not have the licence for the event.  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 Power and Ms Neill that the named respondent is a trading name with no involvement in organizing the event and that the involvement of the legal entity of the hotel which is CP Leisure Ltd is solely to provide the venue for the event.  I also note their evidence which was not disputed by the complainant that the named respondent does not have the licence for the bar.  I also note the evidence of Mr Higgins that the Sunday Club is the organiser of the event and that the Sunday Club events existed prior to the respondent’s involvement. 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