Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Viacheslav Zhosan

Department of Social Protection

Representatives

Represented Himself 

Stephen O’Sullivan BL

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00073005-001

01/07/2025

The Complainant came to Ireland in 2022 in accordance with the EU Temporary Protection Directive 2001, activated in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24th 2022. 

For employees who have occasional employment, but no guarantee of work every week, a means-tested Job Seeker’s Allowance is available.  Claimants availing of this benefit must complete a declaration of unemployment form every week, known as a “UP80,” indicating the days on which they were working and the days they were not working.  The form must be signed by the employer.  

From December 12th 2024 until May 3rd 2025, the Complainant was in receipt of Job Seeker’s Allowance.  On March 29th 2025, he commenced working in a job in the events industry.  The job was casual, with a variable number of hours available.

For people employed on a part-time basis, but working less than 24 hours per week, the Part-time Job Incentive Scheme (PTJI) is available.  It is a condition of this benefit that a claimant works some hours every week, but not more than 24 hours. 

In its submission, the DSP described the difference between the two benefits:

§  The PTJI is intended for people who are unemployed long-term and who take up part-time work for less than 24 hours per week.  It allows them to continue receiving a fixed weekly payment.  In January 2026, the payment was €160.90 for a single person.  The benefit may be paid for up to one year.

§  The Job Seeker’s Allowance may be paid indefinitely and is intended for people who are unemployed or who have casual work for no more than four out of seven days a week.  The payment is reduced depending on the number of days spent working.

§  An applicant in receipt of PTJI who doesn’t work any hours in a week, or, who works for more than 24 hours, loses their entitlement to the benefit.  The Job Seeker’s Allowance is paid according to the number of days a claimant works in a particular week.

§  The rate of payment for PTJI is constant and can be higher than the Job Seeker’s Allowance.  The amount is not reduced if the applicant works for part of the week. 

The Complainant lives in Coolock, and his local social welfare office or “Intreo Centre” is in the Northside Civic Centre in Coolock.  Applications for benefits are processed in a separate Intreo Centre in Kilbarrack.

In April 2025, the Complainant went to the Coolock Intreo Centre and enquired about the PTJI and the Job Seeker’s Allowance.  He was provided with application forms for both benefits and advised to apply for both.  He was informed that the most financially beneficial option would be granted.

On May 7th 2025, the Complainant filled in an application form for the PTJI and brought it to the Intreo Centre in Coolock.  On the form, a copy of which was provided by the Complainant in advance of the hearing, his employer indicated that he was a casual worker and that his weekly hours were variable and that a variable amount of work was available.  The Complainant said that when he submitted the completed form, he was given forms to related to an application for Job Seeker’s Allowance.  The DSP’s submission states that it was unclear if the casual work that the Complainant was engaged in involved him working every week but no more than 24 hours per week. 

On May 12th, the Complainant filled in an application form for Job Seeker’s Allowance.  With his application, he included UP80 forms for the six weeks to May 6th 2025.  He worked for one day a week in three of the weeks and, in the other three weeks, he worked for two, three and five days.

The Complainant’s applications were sent to the Kilbarrack Intreo Centre for processing, as is the usual procedure.  On May 15th, a clerical officer (CO) and a higher executive officer (HEO) in Kilbarrack phoned him about his application for PTJI.  The Complainant said that he did some work every week, but not more than 24 hours and that he wanted to apply for the PTJI and not Job Seeker’s Allowance. 

The Complainant then received two letters from Intreo: The first, dated May 16th from the CO he had spoken with in the Intreo Centre in Kilbarrack, confirming that his application for PTJI was approved and that he would be paid with effect from May 25th 2025.  The letter included a form PTJI 2 for completion by the Complainant’s employer.

Two days later, he received a letter from the Intreo Centre in Coolock, about his claim for Job Seeker’s Allowance, with dockets to complete for the four weeks ending on June 10th 2025. 

On May 22nd, the Complainant sent an email to the Coolock Intreo Centre with a query about the letters he had received dated May 16th and 18th concerning his applications for PTJI and Job Seeker’s Allowance.  He said, “I am unsure which scheme I am currently approved for or expected to proceed with.”  He asked for clarification about which forms he should complete and return.  The executive officer (EO) in the Intreo Centre in Coolock phoned the Complainant and told him that he wasn’t eligible for the PTJI because he wasn’t in full-time employment.  He was advised to complete the UP80 dockets and return them to Coolock so that his Job Seeker’s Allowance claim could be processed.  In the form he submitted to the WRC, the Complainant said that he was asked if he understood that he wasn’t entitled to PTJI.  When he asked for a written explanation, the Complainant said that the officer told him that that wasn’t necessary and ended the call.

The EO in Coolock wasn’t aware that the Complainant had been approved for the PTJI by the staff in Kilbarrack and he cancelled the Complainant’s application for PTJI.

Also on May 22nd, the Complainant wrote to the DSP head office in Aras Mhic Dhiarmada in Store Street, setting out his concerns about the conflicting communications he received from the Intreo Centres regarding his entitlement to the PTJI and the Job Seeker’s Allowance.  He asked for written clarification of his eligibility for the PTJI and the Job Seeker’s Allowance and the grounds for concluding that he was not eligible for the PTJI.  He asked for confirmation of the scheme that he was officially approved for.

The next day, May 23rd, the Complainant received a letter from the Intreo Centre in Coolock informing him that he did not qualify for the PTJI because he wasn’t in a full-time job.  He was informed in the letter that he could participate in the PTJI scheme if he had part-time work for less than 24 hours per week.  As his part-time job was considered to be “sporadic,” the letter-writer advised him to proceed with his claim for Job Seeker’s Allowance. 

At this point, the Complainant had been given two different decisions; one on May 16th 2025 to inform him that he qualified for PTJI and the second on May 22nd to refuse the claim and to direct him to the Job Seeker’s Allowance.  This was because the official from the Coolock Intreo Centre who wrote the letter of May 22nd wasn’t aware of the interactions the Complainant had with the staff in Kilbarrack on May 15th and their decision to grant the PTJI. 

Also on May 23rd, the Complainant submitted a Form ES1 to the DSP by email to info@socialwelfare.ie and to the Intreo Centre in Coolock to coolock@welfare.ie.  He claimed that he was discriminated against and victimised on the ground of his Ukrainian nationality. 

On June 3rd, the Complainant went to the Intreo Centre in Kilbarrack and handed in his PTJI dockets.  As he had not returned any UP80 dockets since May 7th, he was categorised as “payment suspended.”  The CO who received the PTJI dockets from the Complainant looked for an update on his claim.  A HEO then instructed the CO to lift the suspension and to pay any arrears owed.  The HEO then phoned the Complainant and explained that he had been suspended because the system had incorrectly recorded him as a casual worker on the Job Seeker’s Allowance and the Intreo Office had not received any casual work dockets from him.  On June 6th 2025, the Complainant received a payment into his bank account of €732.00 in respect of arrears from May 7th to June 3rd 2025.  On July 1st, he submitted this complaint to the WRC.

On the ES1 form he submitted to the DSP on May 23rd 2025, the Complainant asked for information under nine headings:

1. Eligibility Decision

a. On what exact date, by whom (name & grade) and on what policy basis was my PTJI application refused?

b. Provide a copy of the decision record and any internal notes or memos referencing my PPS No. 9504478EA.

2. Written Versus Verbal Communication

a. Explain why I received PTJI approval letters dated 16 May 2025 after verbal refusals on 15 May and 22 May 2025.

b. Provide recordings or transcripts of all telephone conversations with me on 15 May and 22 May 2025 (time-stamped).

3. Statistical Comparison

a. Total number of PTJI applications processed in Intreo Coolock & Kilbarrack in 2024-2025, broken down by claimant nationality.

b. Approval and refusal rates for each nationality.

c. Median processing time from application to decision for Ukrainian nationals versus Irish nationals.

4. Scheme Substitution

a. List all circumstances in which a claimant requesting PTJI is instead placed on Jobseeker’s Allowance.

b. State how many such substitutions occurred in 2024-2025, broken down by nationality.

5. Training and Guidance

a. Provide the current staff guidelines/manual dealing with non-discrimination under the Equal Status Acts for front-line Intreo Centres.

b. Provide any circulars or emails issued since 1 January 2024 dealing specifically with Ukrainian claimants or Temporary Protection beneficiaries.

 6. Means Assessment

a. Explain how weekly means of €59.31 were calculated for me (letter of 15 May 2025).

b. Provide the same means calculation template with an anonymised Irish comparator working identical hours and wage as mine.

 7. PTJI Criteria

a. Supply the up-to-date written eligibility criteria for PTJI (hours threshold, earnings disregard, “genuinely seeking full-time work” test).

b. Identify any additional conditions applied to Ukrainian or non-EEA nationals.

 8. Complaint Handling

a. Confirm whether my 22 May 2025 email was logged as a complaint or review request; provide the internal reference number.

b. Supply the DSP’s target response time for such complaints and the officer assigned to my case.

9. Equality Monitoring

Provide any internal or external audits carried out since 2022 that examine equality of treatment of non-Irish nationals within PTJI or Jobseeker schemes.

In these non-emotional, objective questions, the Complainant said that he asked the DSP for statistical data to assess how applicants were treated by the DSP according to their nationality.  He was seeking the internal instructions regarding how his application was changed from a claim for PTJI to Job Seeker’s Allowance.  He said that the data he was looking for wasn’t personal, but that it was about the procedure that exists to clarify applications.

The Complainant’s Submission to the WRC dated July 1st 2025

On the e-complaint form he submitted to the WRC, the Complainant set out the details of the contact he had in person and on the phone with staff from the Intreo offices in Coolock and Kilbarrack.  On May 7th, when he presented his application for PTJI and he was given forms to complete related to an application for Job Seeker’s Allowance, he said that he was confused and worried.  He said that, on May 15th, he was told that he wasn’t entitled to PTJI because he couldn’t “guarantee hours.”  When he asked for written confirmation about this decision, he said that the official ended the call.  He said that he felt shocked and stonewalled.  On May 16th, when he received two letters with contradicting outcomes, he said that his anxiety rose sharply. 

On May 22nd 2025, the executive officer in the Intreo Centre in Coolock phoned the Complainant and told him that he wasn’t eligible for the PTJI because he wasn’t in full-time employment.  The Complainant said that the tone of the call made him feel belittled and targeted because he is Ukrainian. 

When he read the letter dated May 22nd from the Intreo Centre in Coolock informing him that he did not qualify for the PTJI because he wasn’t in a full-time job, the Complainant said that his frustration peaked.  In his evidence at the hearing, he said that he felt under pressure to complete the forms and he thought that he’d have a problem if he didn’t apply for Job Seeker’s Allowance.

When he submitted this complaint to the WRC on July 1st 2025, the Complainant hadn’t received a reply to his ES1 form.  He said that he felt ignored.  He received a reply on August 19th 2025.

The Complainant’s Case that he was Discriminated Against

It is the Complainant’s case that the way he was treated by the DSP was a departure from normal procedure.  He referred to the DSP’s leaflets which state that applicants receive a single written decision regarding an application for the PTJI.  Instead, he claims that he was “bounced back and forth between PTJI and JA forms and given only verbal refusals.”

The Complainant submitted that he was spoken to in a condescending manner which suggested an assumption that he would not grasp his understanding of his rights.  He claims that this attitude was linked to his Ukrainian nationality.  He claims that administrative obstacles were placed in his way in the manner in which he claims that he was forced to “juggle contradictory letters and forms.”  He said that he was denied a written explanation for the decision not to approve him for PTJI and that he was ignored after he asserted his legal rights.  He said that this “looks like a pattern designed to deter me from pursuing my claim – something that disproportionately affects newly arrived non-Irish claimants unfamiliar with the system.”

The Complainant asserts that he was victimised in the way the DSP ceased all contact with him when he sent the ES1 form to initiate a formal complaint under the Equal Status Act.  This occurred on May 23rd.  He said that this is a breach of the DSP’s obligations under s.27 of that Act.

Practical and Emotional Impact

The Complainant said that effect of the DSP’s treatment has been practical and emotional.  He said that he has suffered from financial instability and that he fears a sudden claw-back or suspension of his benefits.  He said that he replays the content of the phone calls at night and he worries about his residency status and his bills.  He said that his dignity was eroded when he claims that he was “spoken to like a child” and not given written explanations for decisions.  He made six separate visits to the Intreo Centre, he incurred the cost of bus fares and photocopies and he claims that he spent hours on hold on the phone.  He said that he had to attend his doctor when he suffered from stress-induced headaches.

Redress

In redress, the Complainant is seeking a written and reasoned decision concerning his application for the PTJI.  He is looking for compensation for what he claims was the distress, anxiety and inconvenience caused and he wants a written apology for the mishandling of his case and the alleged discriminatory treatment.  He asked me to issue an order to the DSP to issue clear, consistent, written decisions to all claimants and to guarantee that Ukrainian and other non-Irish applicants receive the same standard of communication and transparency provided to Irish claimants.

Cross-examining of the Complainant

Opening his cross-examining on behalf of the DSP, Mr O’Sullivan said that an error occurred when the Intreo Centre in Kilbarrack approved the Complainant’s claim for the PTJI and the Intreo Centre in Coolock denied the claim.  The DSP’s position is that a mistake occurred between the two Intreo Centres.  The Complainant replied that he didn’t think so and he asked why he wasn’t given a written explanation when he asked for one.  Instead, he was directed to a different scheme, the Job Seeker’s allowance.

Mr O’Sullivan referred to the suggestion by the Intreo Centre in Coolock that a Job Seeker’s application might be more suitable because the Complainant’s hours of work were not regular.  The Complainant said that he wasn’t given a written explanation when he asked for one.  He said that he applied for the PTJI and not Job Seeker’s Allowance.

Mr O’Sullivan reminded the Complainant that he was given the forms to apply for both schemes, and he applied for both.  The Complainant said that he filled out the forms for both benefits because he thought that if he didn’t, he would have a difficulty getting any payment.

Mr O’Sullivan said that an officer in Intreo thought that an application for Job Seeker’s Allowance might be more suitable for the Complainant.  The reason for this is because, if the Complainant worked for more than 24 hours in any week, he would have lost his entitlement to any PTJI.  Under the Job Seeker’s Allowance, the benefit is paid depending on how many days in the week a person is unemployed.

Mr O’Sullivan referred to the note on the file taken by the EO in Coolock, who wrote that the Complainant “is not in full-time employment.”  Mr O’Sullivan said that this note should have referred to fixed hours and not full-time employment.  The Complainant replied that this is more proof that the process wasn’t clear.

The Complainant stated that he applied for the PTJI and he didn’t want any other benefit.

When Mr O’Sullivan pointed out that, with the PTJI, the Complainant would have been at risk of having no benefit, the Complainant said that he thinks he could have lost all the Job Seeker’s Allowance also.

Mr O’Sullivan said that the DSP’s position is that the Complainant could remain on the Job Seeker’s Allowance, even if he worked a full week.  The Complainant replied that he could get less payment on the Job Seeker’s Allowance.

Mr O’Sullivan referred to a telephone call to the Complainant from a CO and a HEO in the Intreo Centre in Kilbarrack on May 15th 2025.  On the call, the Complainant confirmed that he wouldn’t work more than 24 hours in any week and that he wanted to proceed with his application for the PTJI.  The Complainant replied that he didn’t know why the officers from Intreo phoned him because, on May 7th, he had completed the application form for the PTJI.  He agreed that he received a letter dated May 16th 2025, in which his claim was approved.  He agreed also that, on June 6th, his PTJI benefit was paid plus arrears from May 7th. 

Mr O’Sullivan referred to the delay of nine days from May 7th, when the Complainant applied for the PTJI, and May 16th, when his application was approved.  Mr O’Sullivan suggested that nine days for consideration of a claim is not unusual or unreasonable.  The Complainant replied that his first payment was on June 6th, although he agreed that it was back-dated to May 7th.

Mr O’Sullivan referred to the letter dated May 23rd 2025 from the EO in the Intreo Centre in Coolock in which the Complainant was informed that he didn’t qualify for the PTJI.  Mr O’Sullivan asked the Complainant why he thinks the EO treated him differently because of his nationality.  The Complainant replied that he could see that the EO reached a conclusion that he couldn’t understand him and that’s why he rejected his claim on two occasions.  The Complainant agreed with Mr O’Sullivan that the letter doesn’t refer to his nationality, but he said that his nationality is given on the application form.  He said that, in the telephone call with the EO, when he looked for a written response, he was told repeatedly that he wasn’t entitled to the benefit.  The Complainant agreed that he received a written response from the EO on May 23rd 2025.

Mr O’Sullivan said that the DSP’s position is that it does not provide a detailed response to every application which is refused.  The Complainant replied that it’s not a transparent process without an explanation.

Mr O’Sullivan said that the EO in Coolock thought that the PTJI wasn’t suitable for the Complainant and he directed him to the Job Seeker’s Allowance.  The Complainant said that his application for the PTJI was signed by his employer. 

On May 23rd 2025, when he wrote to the Complainant, the EO in Coolock wasn’t aware that his colleagues in the Kilbarrack office had approved the Complainant for the PTJI. 

Mr O’Sullivan referred to the Complainant’s ES1 form.  He said that there is no suggestion on the form that the Complainant thought that he was discriminated against.  The Complainant replied that he thought that the way he was treated was discrimination, and that this was how he was treated by the Intreo Centres from the beginning of his dealings with them.

The Complainant said that he used the ES1 form to ask for the proof that he was treated differently compared to an Irish person.  He said that the DSP has all the proofs and it is difficult for a Complainant to have written proof.

Referring to the information requested by the Complainant in his ES1 form, Mr O’Sullivan remarked that he “asked the DSP to engage in a detailed and impossible task.”  He said that the statistical data he requested is not maintained by the DSP and that it would be an impossible exercise to provide the information he was looking for.  Mr O’Sullivan referred to the ES2 form sent to the Complainant on August 19th 2025 in which the DSP provided an explanation about what occurred between the Coolock and Kilbarrack Intreo Centres and the initial refusal to place him on the PTJI scheme.

Mr O’Sullivan summarised the Complainant’s claim, saying that he took issue with the service provided by the EO in the Coolock Intreo Centre in May 2025 and that he was initially advised to apply for the Job Seeker’s Benefit, when he wanted to apply for the PTJI.  The Complainant replied that he believes that he was treated in a less friendly manner compared to Irish and other EU applicants.  He said that all “the proofs of discrimination are with the respondent.”  He said that he is requesting the WRC to “make the respondent give the comparative information.”

March 2nd 2026: The Complainant’s Response to the DSP’s Submission

The Issue is not the Eventual Payment but the Manner of Treatment

In his submission of March 2nd 2026, the Complainant focussed on the central issue of his complaint, which he said “is not the eventual payment but the manner of treatment and lack of transparency.”  He acknowledged that he was ultimately granted the PTJI and that payments were back-dated, but he said that his complaint is about the manner of the service he received and whether the overall treatment gives rise to an inference of less favourable treatment or a lower standard of service.  He said that, even if the DSP later corrected the payment position, the Equal Status issue for consideration is whether the process, communication and treatment were delivered to an equal standard.  He summarised what he believes was the less favourable treatment:

§  Repeated verbal refusals and confrontational phrasing, for example, asking him if he understood that he wasn’t entitled to the benefit, while he requested written explanations.

§  Contradictory communications, being approved for the PTJI, then refusal correspondence, then payment.

§  Pressure to complete unrelated Job Seeker’s Allowance means tested paperwork when he clearly requested to be granted the PTJI.

§  Delay and uncertainty, resulting in stress and administrative disadvantage, particularly given his circumstances and his reliance on timely payments for basic stability.

The DSP’s ES2 did not Answer the Issues Raised in his ES1

The Complainant said that, on the ES1 form he submitted to the DSP on May 23rd 2025, he did not make a generic complaint, but he asked specific, relevant questions to objectively test whether he had been discriminated against.  He looked for comparator and statistical information by nationality, relevant to the PTJI application and refusal process.  He asked for the processing times for Ukrainians compared to other nationalities.  He looked for information on scheme substitution practices and any internal guidance informing the approach.  He looked for the basis of the decision-making and the communication approach used.

The Complainant said that the DSP did not provide the requested statistical information but advised that he would have to complete a Subject Access Request for “statistical comparison information.”

The Complainant submitted that the objective of the ES1 and ES2 processes are for key issues to be clarified early.  He said that the refusal to answer his core questions frustrates that purpose.

The Complainant submitted that there is an imbalance in the access to evidence.  He said that directing a Complainant to seek statistical and comparator information through the Subject Access Request (SAR) process is a barrier to obtaining evidence of discrimination.

The Complainant’s Subject Access Request History Shows Delay and Misdirection

It is the Complainant’s position that the SAR process is not straightforward or timely.  He didn’t receive a response to his SAR request within the one-month timeframe.  He was informed at his local Intreo office that SAR requests are not make through the local offices and he said that he was directed to the Data Protection Commission, rather than the SAR channel in the DSP.  He said that this misdirection caused a delay.  His SAR request was registered only after it was verified by the DSP and this extended the timeline for a response even further.

The Complainant’s response to his SAR request was delivered in a Sharefile link in December 2025, after the DSP claimed that an earlier email link had not been received.  The Complainant argued that this chronology shows that SAR is not a neutral solution and that it can operate as a practical barrier to a complainant accessing information needed to assess or prove discrimination.

The DSP’s Delay Replying to the Complainant’s ES1 Supports an Adverse Inference

Although the DSP received the Complainant’s ES1 on May 29th 2025, the ES2 response was signed on August 18th 2025.  The Complainant claims that, as a result, he was left in uncertainty for months and that this is relevant to whether the DSP engaged with his ES1 in a timely and transparent manner.

The Complainant asked me to draw a negative conclusion from the DSP’s failure to answer key questions or to provide statistical data and from the delay providing the response.

The DSP Maintains that there is no Evidence of Discrimination

The Complainant asserted that direct evidence is rarely available to a Complainant and the question is whether the facts raise an inference of less favourable treatment requiring an adequate explanation.  He referred to the combination of,

§  Inconsistent communications;

§  Refusal to provide written reasons when requested;

§  Pressure to complete unrelated means test forms;

§  Refusal to provide comparator data in response to the ES1 form;

§  Reliance on SAR despite the fact that it has been demonstrated that SAR results in delays and misdirection;

§  The overall pattern of non-transparency.

The Complainant argues that these points are sufficient to raise an inference that his experience of the service provided to him by the DSP “was not handled to an equal standard.”  The Complainant said that, if they maintain that discrimination did not occur, it remains open to the DSP to rebut that inference by producing objective evidence and contemporaneous records to explain why his application was handled the way it was.

Relevant Background – the Work Placement Experience Programme

The Complainant asked me to consider how a separate application for the Work Placement Experience Programme was handled in February 2025.  He said that this isn’t a separate complaint, but he asked me to consider it as contextual evidence of the DSP’s communication standards as they relate to him.  When he sought clear confirmation on the status and next steps of his application, he said that he received “only a brief and generic response.”  He got no response to his request for clarity or written decisions.  He claims that this context supports his submission that the way his PTJI application was handled is part of a wider pattern of inadequate transparency in his dealings with the service provided by the DSP.

Requests to the WRC

The Complainant asked me to take account of the DSP’s failure to answer the questions he submitted on his ES1 and its reliance on SAR “as a barrier.”  He asked me to consider drawing an adverse inference from the “delayed and incomplete engagement” with his ES1.  He asked me to direct the DSP to clarify what statistical data is available and why it was not provided in response to his ES1.  Finally, given the DSP’s control of the relevant records, the Complainant asked me to consider “any further directions necessary to ensure that the hearing proceeds on a fair evidential footing.”  

Confusion between the Claims for the Part-time Job Incentive and Job Seeker’s Allowance

In its submission in response to this complaint, the DSP said that it aims to give the most appropriate and financially advantageous outcome to all customers and to process applications according to the current guidelines.  The aim of the DSP is to act in the best interest of customers by ensuring that they are fully informed of their options and by facilitating the most financially beneficial outcomes, where possible.

The DSP provided details of the PTJI and the Job Seeker’s Allowance schemes, which have been described in the first section of this document.  Since December 2024, the Complainant had been in receipt of Job Seeker’s Allowance.  In April 2025, when he enquired in the Coolock Intreo Centre about the Job Seeker’s Allowance and the PTJI, the Complainant was advised to apply for both schemes so that his applications could be assessed to determine which was the most financially beneficial.  On May 7th, when he presented his application for the PTJI in Coolock, his paperwork indicated that he was a casual worker in the events sector, with fluctuating earnings and variable hours.  It was not clear that the Complainant had some work every week but no more than 24 hours’ work every week, both of which are the conditions for approval for the PTJI scheme.  The Complainant was advised to submit UP80 dockets in relation to his claim for Job Seeker’s Alliance and his PTJI application was sent to the Kilbarrack Intreo Centre for processing.

In a telephone conversation with a CO and a HEO on May 15th, the Complainant confirmed that he would do some work every week, and that he would not exceed 24 hours in any week.  His claim for the PTJI was approved and, on May 16th, a letter was issued to him to this effect.

On May 22nd, the Complainant sent an email to the Intreo Centre in Coolock.  He had been sent dockets to complete for both PTJI and Job Seeker’s Allowance and he wanted to know which claim had been approved.  A copy of a case note written by the EO who dealt with his claim in Coolock shows that the EO phoned the Complainant and told him that he wasn’t eligible for PTJI because he wasn’t in full-time employment.  He was advised to complete the Job Seeker’s Allowance Dockets.  The Complainant asked for the decision to be confirmed in writing.  Although the letter is undated, the case note indicates that it was written on May 22nd 2025.  In his submission, the Complainant states that he received the letter on May 23rd.  The letter states as follows:

“Dear Mr Zhosan

I refer to your application for Part Time Job Incentive (PTJI) dated 07/05/2025.  I regret to inform you that you do not qualify for this scheme as the employment is not a full-time position.

You can participate in the PTJI Scheme if you get part-time work for less than 24 hours per week.

In this instance you should proceed with the casual claim that was issued to you as your employment with Eventsec is sporadic.

If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact the DSP.

Your Sincerely…”

The author of this letter, the EO in the Coolock Centre, was not aware that, on May 16th, the Complainant was approved for the PTJI by the HEO in the Kilbarrack office and he cancelled the Complainant’s claim for the PTJI. 

At this point, on May 23rd 2025, the Complainant had been issued with two conflicting letters; one from the Kilbarrack Intreo Centre on May 16th approving his claim for the PTJI and a second letter on May 23rd, informing him that his claim was denied.  Using an ES1 form, he submitted a complaint alleging that he had been discriminated against and victimised because of his nationality.  The DSP accepts that the confusion that resulted from the Complainant’s applications for PTJI and Job Seeker’s Allowance was unsatisfactory and asserts that the reason was a lack of communication and consistency between the two Intreo centres in Coolock and Kilbarrack.

The Complainant called to the Intreo Centre in Kilbarrack on June 3rd 2025.  A CO there informed the HEO that his status was “payment suspended” because he had not returned any dockets since May 7th.  The HEO instructed the CO to lift the suspension and to reinstate the PTJI claim with effect from May 16th 2025 and to pay arrears.  The HEO phoned the Complainant and explained that his payment had been suspended because he had been recorded on the system as a casual worker (entitled to Job Seeker’s Allowance) but that no casual dockets had been submitted to support his claim. 

Victimisation

The Complainant did not make a complaint of discrimination under the Equal Status Act before May 23rd 2025, when he submitted his ES1 form.  The DSP’s position is that, to prove that he was victimised, he must establish that there was an act of victimisation after May 23rd 2025.  The DSP submits that the Complainant was not treated differently for having submitted a complaint of discrimination.

Discrimination

The DSP’s position is that any fault in the service provided to the Complainant was not related to his nationality.  He cannot succeed in a claim for discrimination just because the service provided was unsatisfactory or below par.

The DSP has a Customer Charter which sets out its commitments to its customers regarding the service they can expect and how it will be delivered.  Where an application for a benefit is refused, there are various methods for making a complaint and seeking a remedy.  The DSP aims to resolve complaints at local level, but, where this isn’t feasible, the customer may submit a formal complaint, which will be investigated promptly, impartially and in confidence.  A complaint has no negative impact on a customer’s claim or the payment of a benefit.  The DSP aims to deal with complaints promptly and responds to all complaints within 15 working days.  The Complainant did not submit a complaint under this procedure. 

In relation to his complaint of discrimination on the ground of nationality, the Complainant is required to show that he was treated less favourably compared to a person of a different nationality.  He has not identified such a comparator.  Mr O’Sullivan argued that his request in his ES1 form to be provided with the numbers of nationals refused the PTJI and the number of non-nationals refused is excessive.  The Complainant was ultimately granted the PTJI and was not at a loss because of any delay in the processing of his application.

Social welfare officers deal with more than 90 forms of social welfare schemes with a high volume of decisions made daily.  The DSP’s budget for 2026 is €28.9 billion.  In any week, around 2.5 million payments are processed, and mistakes do occur.

The DSP’s Legal Position in Response to the Complainant’s Claim of Discrimination

The DSP’s position is that the Complainant has not established the basic facts from which it can be presumed that he was discriminated against.  In the appeal to the Labour Court of Mary Margetts v Graham Anthony & Company Limited[1], Ms Margetts argued that she was discriminated against on the grounds of her marital status, her family status and her age.  While this is a complaint related to equality in employment, the point made by the Chairperson of the Court, Ms Jenkinson, is relevant to the case we are considering here:

“The law requires the Complainant to establish facts from which it may be inferred that discrimination has taken place.  The appellant must, on the balance of probabilities, prove those facts from which such an inference can be drawn.  When these facts are established to the satisfaction of the Court, the onus shifts to the respondent to show, on the balance of probabilities, that it did not discriminate against the appellant.  The mere fact that the Complainant falls within one of the discriminatory grounds laid down under the Act is not sufficient in itself to establish a claim of discrimination.  The Complainant must adduce other facts from which it may be inferred on the balance of probabilities that an act of discrimination has occurred.”

The nature of these primary facts was highlighted in the decision of the Labour Court in ArtursValpeters v Melbury Developments[2].  Again, while this decision is in the context of discrimination in employment, the onerous nature of the burden of proof is clearly set out:

“This requires that the Complainant must first establish facts from which discrimination may be inferred.  What those facts are will vary from case to case and there is no closed category of facts which can be relied upon.  All that is required is that they be of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of discrimination.  However, they must be established as facts on credible evidence.  Mere speculations or assertions, unsupported by evidence, cannot be elevated to a factual basis upon which an inference of discrimination can be drawn.  Section 85A places the burden of proof fairly and squarely on the Complainant and the language of this provision admits of no exceptions to that evidential rule.”

Finally, Mr O’Sullivan referred to the decision of the Labour Court in the case of Rescon Limited v Scanlan[3] in which the Court concluded that,

"In this case the Complainant has adduced no evidence to establish a nexus between his gender and the Respondent's failure to offer him the disputed post other than that a woman was appointed and he was not.  In the Court's view a mere difference in gender and a difference in treatment, in the sense that the Comparator was appointed and the Complainant was not, could never in itself provide a sufficient evidential basis upon which to raise a presumption of discrimination."

Mr O’Sullivan concluded by submitting that, if the Complainant establishes a prima facie case, the circumstances show that the treatment was not related to his nationality.

The Legal Framework

Discrimination is defined at section 3 of the Equal Status Act 2000 (“the Act”) as follows:

(1) For the purposes of this Act discrimination shall be taken to occur -

(a) where a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) or, if appropriate, subsection (3B), (in this Act referred to as the ‘discriminatory grounds’) which -

(i) exists,

(ii) existed but no longer exists,

(iii) may exist in the future, or

(iv) is imputed to the person concerned,

(b) where a person who is associated with another person - 

(i) is treated, by virtue of that association, less favourably than a person who is not so associated is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation, and 

(ii) similar treatment of that other person on any of the discriminatory grounds would, by virtue of paragraph (a), constitute discrimination, or

(c) where an apparently neutral provision would put a person referred to in any paragraph of section 3(2) at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons, unless the provision is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary. 

Subsection (2) sets out the discriminatory grounds, which, at subsection (2)(h) is the ground of race, colour nationality or ethnic or national origins. 

In accordance with the objectives of the Act, the public has a right to access the services of the Department of Social Protection without being discriminated against on any ground.  Section 5(1) addresses this right:

A person shall not discriminate in the disposing of goods to the public generally or to a section of the public, or in providing a service, whether the disposal or provision is for a consideration or otherwise and whether the service can be availed of only by a section of the public.

My task here is to consider the Complainant’s case that, because he is from Ukraine, the Department of Social Protection treated him less favourably than an Irish person or a person of another nationality. 

Section 38A(1) of the Act provides that, in the first instance, there is an onus on the person making a complaint to set out the facts that lead to a presumption that discrimination has occurred:

(1) Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a person from which it may be presumed that prohibited conduct has occurred in relation to him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.

The Complainant’s claims that the way he was treated by the Intreo officers in Coolock and Kilbarrack was a departure from the normal procedure.  Although he was granted the PTJI and the payment was back-dated, he argues that the central issue is the way he was treated and the lack of transparency and not the fact that he received the payment.  If I find that the facts show that discrimination is the likely cause of how the Complainant was treated, then the burden of proving that discrimination has not occurred transfers to the DSP.

Examination of the Facts

From the end of March 2025, the Complainant was working on a casual basis with Eventsec in Belfast.  He submitted “UP80” declaration of unemployment forms to his local Intreo Centre every week and he was paid the Job Seeker’s Allowance based on the number of days that he wasn’t working.  A UP80 form was completed by Eventsec on May 7th 2025 and shows that the Complainant worked for seven days in the month of April 2025, but that he was projected to work for three days each week in the month of May.

Instead of the Job Seeker’s Allowance, the Complainant decided to apply for the PTJI and on May 7th, he went to the Intreo Centre in Coolock and submitted a PTJI claim form.  Part 2 of the form was completed by his employer.  Question 14 is, “How many hours does or will the employee work each week?” The employer put a line through the box in which the number of hours was to be inserted and wrote, “variable.”  Underneath he wrote,

“Employee is a casual worker in events industry.  Variable amount of work available.”

The DSP’s guideline on the PTJI states that it is suitable for people who are employed on a part-time basis for less than 24 hours per week.  The payment is currently fixed at €160.90 per week.  I understand from this that the benefit is targeted at employees who have part-time jobs with fixed hours and fixed pay.  The EO who received the Complainant’s PTJI application on May 7th decided that the Job Seeker’s Allowance was more suitable for his casual employment and he gave him UP80 dockets to complete.  The Complainant said that this caused him to be confused and worried.

I accept that it may have been confusing for the Complainant to be directed to complete forms for a benefit other than the one he applied for.  For some, the situation may also have been worrying.  However, the decision of the EO to direct the Complainant back to the Job Seeker’s Allowance is not indicative of poor treatment, or less beneficial treatment, but was to ensure that he was on the benefit that suited his casual employment.  Even if the Complainant was unhappy with the EO’s direction, there is no evidence that the EO made the decision because the Complainant is from Ukraine.  The evidence clearly points to the EO deciding that the Job Seeker’s Allowance was more suitable to a person with casual employment.

Although, on May 7th, the Complainant applied for the PTJI, on May 12th, he applied for the Job Seeker’s Allowance.  His UP80 dockets for the six weeks up to May 6th show that he worked for one day a week for three weeks, and for two, three and five days respectively in the other three weeks.  A separate document completed by Eventsec on May 7th shows that the Complainant worked the following hours in the six weeks ending on May 3rd 2025:

Week commencing:

March 24th:  7.75 hours

March 31st:  12.5 hours

April 7th:  10 hours

April 14th:  17 hours

April 21st:  13.25 hours

April 28th:  19 hours

It is evident from this information that the Complainant did not work fixed hours, but that he was employed on a casual basis and that in general, he worked for less than 24 hours per week.

The Complainant’s applications were sent to the Intreo Centre in Kilbarrack, where the decision-maker is located.  In a telephone call with two officials on May 15th, he said that he didn’t work for more than 24 hours a week and that he wanted to apply for the PTJI.  His application was approved in writing the following day.  However, on May 18th, he received a letter from Coolock with UP80 dockets to complete for the four weeks ending on June 10th 2025. 

As he had been issued with two separate letters related to two different schemes, at 11.13 on May 22nd, the Complainant sent an email to the Coolock Intreo Centre looking for clarification.  The EO in Coolock who was dealing with his claim phoned him at 11.30 and told him that he wasn’t eligible for the PTJI because he wasn’t in full-time employment.  I understand from the DSP’s submission that this was a mistake and the official should have referred to fixed employment.

The Complainant claims that he was spoken to in a condescending manner and that this suggested that he didn’t understand his rights.  He said that he felt belittled and targeted by the tone of the call.  He said that the EO asked, “Do you not understand you’re not entitled to the benefit?”  He claims that he was denied a written explanation for the EO’s decision not to approve him for the PTJI.  However, the DSP’s submission contains a copy of the case note written by the EO on May 22nd at 11.33, following his phone call with the Complainant at 11.30.  The note records that the EO phoned the Complainant and explained that he didn’t qualify for the PTJI because he wasn’t in full-time employment.  This records the mistake the EO made on the telephone when he referred to the condition for receipt of the PTJI being full-time employment rather than fixed employment.  The EO wrote to the Complainant and explained why, in his view, he didn’t qualify for the PTJI:

“I regret to inform you that you do not qualify for this scheme as the employment is not a full-time position.”

I have no evidence to support the Complainant’s contention that he was spoken to in a condescending manner which suggested that, as a non-Irish national, he didn’t understand his rights.  It is my view that the EO did what was required to ensure that the Complainant understood his rights.  He phoned him within 15 minutes of receiving his email and he wrote to him the same day explaining the reason that he decided that he wasn’t eligible for the PTJI.  Although the EO made a mistake by referring to full-time employment instead of fixed hours of work, his decision to phone the Complainant promptly in reply to his email and the fact that he wrote to him in response to his request for a written explanation, indicates to me that he treated him with respect and courtesy.

When he submitted his ES1 form to the DSP on May 23rd 2025, the Complainant had more effective, efficient and less costly options available to deal with the confusion he faced.  He could simply have gone to the Intreo Office in Kilbarrack to speak to the CO who wrote the letter of May 16th approving his claim for the PTJI and asked her to clarify his entitlements.  In any event, he went there on June 3rd and handed in his PTJI dockets.  The HEO in Kilbarrack resolved the confusion and telephoned the Complainant to explain the reason he had not been paid since May 7th.  On June 6th, he was paid the PTJI plus arrears. 

The Complainant’s allegation of discrimination crystallised on May 22nd 2025, when he claimed that, because of his Ukrainian nationality, he was issued with “contradictory instructions and verbal refusals.”  In cross-examining at the hearing, he accepted that, on May 23rd 2025, he received a written explanation from the EO in Coolock who decided that he was not eligible for the PTJI.  I am satisfied that the contradictory instruction contained in that letter arose because the EO had not been informed that, on May 15th, the HEO in Kilbarrack approved the Complainant’s claim for the PTJI.  Having examined the facts, it is my view that the treatment that the Complainant alleges was discriminatory, occurred simply because of a failure of communication between the two Intreo offices.

The basic facts show that the reason the Complainant was issued with contradictory information was due to miscommunication, and there are no facts that point to the cause being related to his Ukrainian nationality.  Having reached this conclusion, I must find that the Complainant’s claim that he was discriminated against is without foundation.  The burden of proving that discrimination did not occur does not now shift to the DSP.

Concluding Remarks

I have given very serious consideration to the Complainant’s case and, while I accept that the confusion caused by the miscommunication between the Intreo Centres in Coolock and Kilbarrack was frustrating, it is my view that, for most reasonable people, frustration is the height of the detriment.  At no point was the Complainant denied a benefit.  When he got in touch with an Intreo Centre, he got an immediate response and the delay in the payment to him of his benefits from May 7th 2025 arose because he didn’t contact anyone in Coolock or Kilbarrack after May 18th.  His claim was resolved when he called to Kilbarrack on June 3rd.

I do not accept the Complainant’s contention that there was a lack of transparency in the way he was treated by the officials in Coolock and Kilbarrack, or by the DSP as a whole.  No information was hidden from him and, when he asked the CO in Coolock for a written explanation for the refusal to grant him the PTJI, a refusal which turned out to be an error, he received a written explanation the following day.  It is my view that there is no substance to the Complainant’s contention that the service he received from DSP was delayed and uncertain.  All the evidence shows that his applications and his enquiries received immediate responses.  While a mistake occurred, the situation could have easily been resolved if he had called to the Intreo Centre in Kilbarrack and asked the official who approved his claim to clarify the problem arising from the contradictory letters.

I wish to address the Complainant’s contention that he was victimised when he claims that the DSP “ceased all contact” with him after he submitted his ES1 form and failed to answer the questions he submitted.  Firstly, the facts show that, after he submitted the ES1 on May 23rd 2025, the Complainant didn’t contact the Intreo Office again until June 3rd, when he brought in dockets for his PTJI claim.  On that day, his “payment suspended” status was immediately resolved by the CO who attended to him and the HEO phoned him to explain why he had been suspended.  The reason was because, since May 7th, he hadn’t submitted dockets in relation to any claim.  It is apparent therefore, that the DSP did not cease all contact with the Complainant after he submitted his ES1. 

The Complainant said that his purpose in sending the ES1 form to the DSP on May 23rd was to objectively test whether he had been discriminated against.  The purpose of an ES1 is for a person who thinks they have been discriminated against to set out their understanding of the facts, to ask for an explanation and to warn a respondent of a possible legal claim.  Its purpose is not to ask for evidence to support a perception of discrimination.  The person submitting the form must be in possession of information that leads to an inference that discrimination has occurred.  It is not the responsibility of a respondent to provide evidence to a Complainant.  The information sought by the Complainant on his ES1 form is more appropriate for a PhD thesis and not a complaint of discrimination, which requires only the basic facts.  I agree that the 10 weeks that the DSP took to respond to the Complainant’s ES1 was too long.  It is my view however, that this delay was not related to his nationality, but was due to the complexity of the information he requested and the time required for the officials in Kilbarrack to get advice about how to respond.   

I wish to acknowledge the difficulties that many Ukrainian people experienced leaving their country due to the war inflicted by Russia.  I was struck by the evidence given by the Complainant’s friends, Mr Satana and Mr Janeeski which points to the incredible hardships faced by people who had to leave their homes and families, and the added suffering of people with disabilities.  I am satisfied however, that, in their dealings with him, the DSP did not treat the Complainant any less favourably because he is from Ukraine.  Contrary to his assertions, I find that he was treated respectfully and in line with the DSP’s normal procedure for all its clients.  It is my view that this matter could have been resolved if the complainant had made a simple enquiry at the Intreo Centre in Kilbarrack after he received the letter from the Coolock Centre of May 22nd.  It is regrettable that he did not seek to resolve his complaint without recourse to a hearing at the WRC.

I have concluded that the facts presented by the Complainant are insufficient to show that he was discriminated against on the ground of his nationality and I decide therefore, that his complaint is not well founded.

Discrimination on the race ground, burden of proof