Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Pierce Parker

University College Dublin

Representatives

Represented himself 

Barra Faughnan BL

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00066392-001

01/10/2024

Mr Parker obtained a PhD from UCD in September 2021.  During his tenure as a student, he was the subject of a student disciplinary investigation arising from his occupation of college buildings as his accommodation.  When he completed his studies, he moved his accommodation to the Agriculture Building, conduct that resulted in him being permanently barred from UCD’s campus in May 2022.

Although he is not permitted to be in any building on the campus, Mr Parker has applied for more than 20 jobs in UCD.  In September 2023, he was appointed to a six-month contract as a post-doctoral researcher, a position offered directly by an individual academic.  As soon as the university became aware that he had been offered this position and that he would be required to attend the campus to carry out the role, his employment was terminated and he was paid one month’s pay in lieu of notice. 

By the date of this hearing on April 2nd 2025, Mr Parker had submitted 10 complaints to the WRC in which he alleged that he was discriminated against by UCD.  He has also had a dispute about his dismissal from the post-doctoral role heard by the Labour Court.  Seven hearings have concluded with the adjudication officers finding that Mr Parker was not discriminated against.  His complaints have been dismissed because they were submitted in bad faith and / or were deliberately vexatious.  Mr Parker has not initiated any appeals.

In the first complaint scheduled for a hearing on the same day as this complaint, Mr Parker claimed that, on August 14th 2024, UCD failed to provide him with reasonable accommodation by not permitting him to attend an interview over Zoom.  In a letter from Mason Hayes and Curran LLP (MHC) on behalf of UCD, he was informed that the refusal to allow him to attend an interview is because he is “banned from the campus for all purposes” and because the position he was applying for would require him to work on campus, a position he could not fulfil because he is banned.

This complaint is concerned with a role Mr Parker applied for in September 2024, as a senior business researcher in the Smurfit Business School.  He was invited for an interview on October 10th 2024, but, on September 30th, the interview was cancelled.  On the form on which he submitted this complaint, he ticked each of the boxes to claim that he was discriminated against on the grounds of gender, civil status and race. 

On behalf of UCD, Mr Faughnan submitted that the decisions of the adjudication officers not to uphold Mr Parker’s previous complaints mean that this complaint is subject to the doctrine of res judicata.  He argued that the time limit for submitting an appeal of the earlier decisions has passed and it is not open to Mr Parker to “agitate matters which have already been decided against him.”

Before the hearing of this complaint on April 2nd 2025, I read Mr Parker’s submission, which he provided to the WRC on August 20th 2024, along with supporting documents.  His submission sets out his history in UCD from the commencement in 2014 of his studies for a Doctor of Philosophy Degree, until May 31st 2022, when he was barred.  In his submission, Mr Parker included a copy of the letter of May 31st from UCD’s Legal Office which was handed to him on the same date and in which the exclusion was confirmed.  For clarity, I wish to record the letter in full here:

“Dear Sir

Re:  Barring from University Campus and Property

We are very concerned to be advised that you continue to be associated with unacceptable incidents on University property.

Your behaviour has also caused considerable trouble for and taken up much time of the University’s security staff and estate services.

University campus are private property and the University reserves the right to prevent access to it’s (sic) campus and buildings.

You are formally notified that you have been barred from all University campus and buildings with immediate effect.

In the event that you enter any University campus, including Belfied Dublin 4, buildings or other property this will be regarded as an act of trespass and the Gardaí will be notified.  The University reserves the right to take action against you should you commit any act of trespass as referred to in this letter.

Yours faithfully,

Signature is indecipherable

UCD Legal Office”

Despite this instruction, Mr Parker attempted to gain employment in UCD.  The subject of this ninth complaint concerns his application in September 2024 for a role as a senior business researcher in the Smurfit Business School.  The recruiting officers were unaware that he was barred and, on September 25th, he was invited to an interview on October 10th.  In an email on September 30th, a member of the HR team wrote to Mr Parker, cancelling the interview.  The email reads as follows:

“Dear Dr Parker,

We refer to the previous communications you have received from UCD’s legal representatives, Mason Hayes & Curran.

We confirm that your interview for the above competition on the 10th of October 2024 is cancelled.”

Kind regards,

UCD Human Resources”

Mr Parker included a copy of the letter from MHC in the documents he submitted for this hearing.  The letter states that he would not be considered for the position of post-doctoral researcher because the job would require him to work on the campus, from which he is banned and that the ban derived from his conduct.  I understand from the respondent’s submission that this conduct is related to Mr Parker’s persistent refusal, prior to May 2022, to desist from sleeping and cooking in a building on the campus.

At the opening of the hearing on April 2nd 2025, I informed Mr Parker that, having read his submission and, having considered the outcome from his previous complaints, it is my view that this latest complaint of discrimination is without merit and that it was my intention to dismiss it. 

Conclusion

Mr Parker’s allegation that he has been discriminated against by UCD has been considered over five days of hearings at the WRC and one day at the Labour Court.  His previous complaints have all been dismissed.  It is clear that Mr Parker will not be permitted to take up a role in UCD because of his conduct.  I am satisfied that this exclusion is not associated with his gender, civil status or race. 

It is my view that this latest complaint, submitted incorrectly under the Equal Status Act, was made in bad faith and with the intention of causing inconvenience and cost for UCD.

Section 22 of the Equal Status Act 2000 provides that, at any time, I may dismiss a complaint if I am of the opinion that it is frivolous, vexatious or misconceived or relates to a trivial matter.  As this complaint relates to the decision of UCD not to employ Mr Parker, it is not properly for consideration under the Equal Status Act, the objective of which is to prohibit discrimination associated with the sale of goods or the provision of services.

I decide that this complaint is dismissed because it is vexatious and misconceived.

Complaint dismissed