Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Gladys  O'Neill

Chief Executive   c/o Iarnród Eireann

Representatives

Self-Represented

Ms Burke of Corporate HR Department.

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00068286-001

20/12/2024

The Complaint, a Railway Passenger, alleged that she had been discriminated against by the Railway Company on the grounds of Disability, Provision of Goods and Services and a failure to provide Reasonable Accommodation.

The incident complained of took place on the 27th July 2024 at Heuston Station, Dublin.

The Complainant was self-represented. She gave an oral testimony support by evidential documents and copies of correspondence & e mails. She was a most convincing and articulate witness with a background in disability research /advocacy.

Forms ES1 and ES2 were exhibited. She had booked by Telephone with Irish Rail/Iarnród Eireann a ticket, to Tullamore, 2 days in advance as she was Disabled. She had explained in detail her condition to the Booking person. The Complainant uses a rollator due to a spinal condition and has chronic COPD. She stated that she had repeated all these details 3 times to the booking Agent to be sure of disabled access to the Train,

On the day of travel, she went to the Booking / Assistance Office. She was told me to wait at the Platform gate. The train was late and when it arrived at the Platform there was a stampede, and she was “pushed” along. She realised her seat was at the front of the train and she arrived breathless and last. The man with the ramp pushed her on and the train took off. She was still in the small space between the Carriage door and the internal passenger Compartment. Her rollator got stuck. She couldn’t move and couldn’t catch her breath. She was in full panic and couldn’t reach her medication. A kind girl saw her distress and came to her aid. She got her sitting, folded her rollator, gave her water and access to her medicine. She then helped her disembark in Tullamore.

The Complainant was still traumatised and distraught. She informed the ticket man at Tullamore, and he gave her the assistance number, they don’t work weekends. This was a Saturday. She had received no serious response from Irish Rail. She referenced the ES1 And ES2 forms that had been exchanged.

She felt that Iarnród Eireann had failed to observe their own Disability Policies, and the incident had identified serious failings in Staff Training as regards Disability Passengers.

The Respondent was represented by Ms Burke of the HR Dept supported by a number of Senior Managers. A detailed written submission was provided.

The Respondent accepted that the Complainant had had a negative experience and had apologised. The CEO, Mr M, had written to her to this effect on the 19th August 2025.

The Company has significant Disability Training policies in place, and all staff are trained in their use. The Head of Customer Care, Mr X, had actively engaged with the Complainant in relation to her complaints.

The facts as stated by the Respondent were that the Galway service on the day in question was at capacity. It had been delayed in arrival at the Platform by operational hold ups with another service. This had led to a large body of passengers waiting at the Gate. When the Gate was opened there was a rush to the Train. Unfortunately, the Complainant got caught up in the rush of passengers. It was the Respondent view that the Complainant was unwise to have, accidentally or otherwise, got caught in this rush and should have waited for a Railway Staff member to assist her. The Ticket Office had e mailed the Station to advise of the Complainant’s needs which would have been addressed.

The Respondent pointed to the Legal precedents as regards Discrimination complaints, Graham Anthony and Co Ltd v Mary Margaretts EDA038 and Cork City Council v McCarthy EDA0821 to establish the need for a Complainant to establish a strong Prima facie case of discrimination. In this case this was lacking as there was no cogent proof of a deliberately discriminatory course of action by the Railway Company. It was their defence that they had advised the Complainant, at the time of booking, (2 days before travel) that there were no special Disabled Seats remaining (they had been booked in advance by other passengers).  Legal precedent was also quoted to the effect that a negative customer experience does not automatically equate to discrimination. The case of Noordally v Islamic Cultural Centre Adj -00045839 was cited. Here the issue had been access to disabled parking spaces. The Respondent, the Islamic Centre, had stated that on the day in question, a major Islamic religious festival, the car park had been closed for safety/capacity reasons. 

In the Railway case here, the train was at full capacity. The Complaint had not been able to secure a Disability seat by virtue of a late booking. There was no evidence of any deliberate, manifest or covert disability actions on the part of the Respondent. The case law above was cited again.

They had apologised for the unpleasant experiences of the Complainant and appreciated her contacts to inform them of same.

However, the legal position was clear. There are no prima facie grounds for a Discrimination claim and the complaint must legally fail.

Significant and most heartfelt oral evidence was given in this case. There was no doubt that the Complainant had suffered an unpleasant and indeed frightening experience.

On the day in question the Railway was operating at full capacity and the delays in the Train arriving at the Platform had created what was, realistically, almost a basic crowd control situation among frustrated Passengers on a late July, Saturday afternoon. There may have been Safety issues here, but these are not covered by Discrimination provisions.

Passengers waiting, in, as stated, a degree of some frustration, were inevitably going to surge forward when the opportunity arose to board the Train. The Respondent, with limited mobility, unfortunately, got caught in this surge.

None the less, the Legal position was quite clear. The Respondent Railway Company had not in any way deliberately discriminated against the Complainant.

The Railway Company had stated that they had warned the Complainant that the Service was at capacity. Disability seats were already pre booked.  She could have stood aside at the Gate until a Railway Person came to her assistance. This has been requested to the Station Staff, well in advance, by the email from the Booking office.

It was discussed that the Complainant could have taken a later service where passenger numbers might not have been so high.

The Respondent pointed to their extensive Training programmes on Disability Travellers and their genuine regret that, on day in late Summer, a disabled Passenger had a negative experience in a very crowded Station.

The Adjudication view has to be that strictly legally the case for Discrimination as set out in the Equal status Act 2000 has not been made out. There was no evidence that the Respondent had deliberately discriminated or refused Reasonable Accommodation. The Booking Office had requested Special Assistance which was being provided but seemed to have been lost sight of in a mad rush /surge to get a seat on what was already, probably, an overcrowded Train back to Galway.

Equal Status, Disability.