Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Michael  Clarke

Bus Eireann

Representatives

  In person

 Company Management

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00057414-001

29/06/2023

The complainant is an elderly gentleman who uses the services of the respondent transport provider.

This complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 30th June 2023.

The Complainant is a pensioner in his 70’s in poor health who had travelled from Belfast while on holiday to attend the funeral of his lifelong friend in Strabane, Co. Tyrone on 29th December 2022. As the funeral was delayed to 30th December and not having too much money the complainant decided to return to Belfast via Lifford Co. Donegal as he hoped to catch the Ulster bus service to Strabane the following morning.

The complainant contends that he faced great difficulty in obtaining the normal (pink ticket) free travel from Expressway drivers to return to Belfast thus causing him great distress and discomfort on this cold and damp evening with nothing to eat or drink as every place (toilets etc) were closed due to the Christmas holidays.

The Complainant was then forced to catch the last bus from Strabane at 8.15pm (Letterkenny to Dublin Expressway). As the bus pulled into Monaghan bus station at 9.50pm the complainant urgently needed to use the toilet facility. The driver refused to open the restroom and instead suggested that the complainant that he use an area behind some bins on the loading bay. The complainant faced considerable discomfort and embarrassment due to the actions of the bus driver. As a pensioner he depends on public transport and expects to be treated with courtesy, especially so when it comes to essential needs like using a toilet. The suggestion made by the driver was not only inappropriate but also embarrassing and totally without dignity. The suggestion that the driver offered to stop at a garage is nonsense, and further victimisation in suggesting that he would refuse this apparently preferring to soil himself.

Later, when the complainant expressed his discomfort at a Garda checkpoint, the driver accused the complainant of being rude and suggested that he should be removed from the bus. Fortunately, other passengers supported the complainant and this, in the complainant’s opinion, prevented the situation escalating. Again, the complainant found this incident to be another source of embarrassment.

As the bus drove away from Castleblayney the abdominal pains the complainant’s lower body started to get really bad, while feeling physically sick and unable to sit steady he lost control of his bowels as the bus drove along the Carrickmacross bypass resulting in him soiling himself feeling extremely ashamed and embarrassed by the smell. The passenger who was sitting next to the complainant was very sympathetic and understanding while stating: 'l can only imagine the needless suffering you were going through especially being an old man after the effort you had made pleading with that driver to use a toilet, it was no big deal for him to stop for you at Castleblaney or at Mc McCaughey's service station giving that the toilets at Monaghan bus station was locked up.

The complainant is sure a lot of people from Donegal especially the woman and children would like to have used the toilets at Monaghan bus station also after that journey from Donegal.

Surely the responsibility must stay with Bus Management, who in the complainant’s view couldn't care less about the passengers. Expressway 21x32 bus service arrived at Dublin Airport at 23.45hrs where the complainant   rushed into the toilets at Terminal 2 and cleaned himself as best he could. At 01.15hrs next morning on 30th December the complainant caught the Ulster Bus to Belfast

The whole experience had an extremely detrimental effect on the complainant’s mental health. The complainant has forwarded a doctor’s letter in relation to this, but he wishes to emphasise the additional psychological trauma as a result of this incident.

This experience has made the complainant apprehensive about using public transportation in the future, this is a crucial service for him.

The complainant asks that the WRC recognise the distress this incident has caused him and takes steps to ensure that such an experience is not repeated for him or any other passenger.

Furthermore, the lack of a pink ticket led the complainant to miss the funeral of a lifelong friend, and this has added to the complainant’s distress.

The respondent produced no submission at the hearing of the complaint. The following information is taken from the ES2 form completed by the respondent.

29th December 2022.

Two drivers on Southbound Expressway Route 32 / 32X (Lifford 15:59 and 20:15) were not familiar with cross-border pink tickets which can be used to allow cross border travel with Translink services.

At Monaghan station, when travelling south to Dublin Airport the driver did not have access to toilets in Monaghan Station which is locked at night and was not aware of any close toilet location that was open. The driver suggested a petrol station outside Monaghan, but this suggestion was not accepted. The driver was asked to divert off route to find a Garda station but was not able to meet this request.

2nd January 2023

A driver on Southbound Expressway Route 32/32X (16.06 at Strabane) was not aware that cross border pink tickets were available on Route 32 and was not able to issue a ticket. The driver contacted a Supervisor in Busáras, Dublin, asking about cross – border tickets and then offered to return the bus to Strabane Station if the passenger wanted to disembark. The offer was declined and the passenger exited the bus on Bradley Way and walked back to Strabane Station.

At 18:17 on the same day a driver on a Northbound Expressway Route 32/32X arrived in Strabane Station and was able to issue a cross-border pink ticket for travel from Lifford to Belfast.

Steps taken.

The following steps have now been taken to ensure there is no repeat of events that occurred in late December 2022.

Cross – border pink tickets:

The Respondent has taken the following actions to increase driver awareness of cross-border pink tickets:

·         Bus Eireann’s Service Delivery Manager for Dublin has spoken to Supervisors based in Dublin Busáras Station to ensure that all Dublin based Route 32 drivers are aware of these tickets

·         The Expressway team have worked with the Donegal Operations team to ensure that all Donegal based drivers are aware of pink tickets.

Monaghan Station toilet facilities.

Normal practice when stations are locked out of hours is to offer toilet access at a local petrol station. In addition, the Expressway team have worked with the Operations Team to ensure that all drivers on Route 32/32x have access to a key for Monaghan Station toilets out of hours.

This complaint has been submitted to the Workplace Relations Commission under section 25 of the Equal Status Act of 2000.

The complainant is alleging that he was discriminated against in the provision of goods and/or services on 29/12/2022 and again on 02/01/2023.

Direct discrimination arises where a person is treated less favourably because they are in one of the categories protected by the Act or because of a condition that cannot be disassociated from that characteristic.

Comparators

Equality Law is based on comparison; how one person is treated by comparison to another who does not possess the relevant protected characteristic. It is therefore necessary to ground a claim of discrimination by pointing to how another person, not having the protected characteristic relied upon, was, is or would be treated in a comparable situation. This is referred to as a comparator. A comparator must be employed by the same employer as the complainant or by an associated employer. Two employers are associated if one is a body corporate of which the other has control of if both are bodies corporate of which a third person has control.

The comparator need not be employed at the same time as the complainant and reliance can be placed on how a person who has left the employment was treated in a comparable situation.

A comparator is an evidential tool. They are intended to contrast the treatment of the complainant, in respect to the matter complained of, with that of another person in similar circumstances who does not have the protected characteristic relied upon. In many cases the comparator will be an actual person, but they need not be. Situations may arise where the complainant is the only person in the employment, or all other employees whose circumstances are similar may have the same protected characteristic as the complainant. In these situations, it is permissible to select a hypothetical comparator. A hypothetical comparator can be constructed by asking why the complainant was treated as they were. If the treatment complained of was because of a protected characteristic, a hypothetical comparator is a supposed person who does not have that characteristic but who is otherwise in the same position as the complainant. For example, if it is contended that a person was treated less favourably because they are a member of the Traveller Community, a hypothetical comparator would be a member of the settled community whose circumstances are otherwise similar. Generally, a hypothetical comparator can only be relied upon if no actual comparator is available.

In the instant case the refusal to issue a pink ticket had nothing to do with the complainant’s age. At the hearing of the complaint, we heard that the ‘pink tickets’ were not available on the buses in question, and the drivers of said buses had no knowledge of how the pink ticket system operated.

In relation to the bathroom facilities in Monaghan station not being available after a certain time in the evening and no keys being available, we heard what steps Bus Eireann management have taken to ensure such a situation cannot be repeated.

By no stretch of the imagination can the treatment that the complainant was subjected to be considered acceptable, he was treated poorly, and I note that senior Bus Eireann (Expressway) management have apologised to the complainant.

The events in question do not amount to discrimination on the grounds of age. The complaint as presented under the Equal Status Act 2000 is not well founded.

The events in question do not amount to discrimination on the grounds of age. The complaint as presented under the Equal Status Act 2000 is not well founded.

Equal Status Act 2000.