Related cases: Patrick Dooley v Lidl Ireland Gmbh (ADJ-00040158) and A Minor / Next Friend v A Large Supermarket (ADJ-00040155)

Background:

The Complainant is a minor and attended the Respondent’s premises on 14 March 2022 with his brother and cousin. After browsing in the shop for a period of five minutes, an employee of the Respondent approached the Complainant and instructed him and his family members to leave the premises. The Complainant alleged he was told “we don’t want your kind in this shop,” but this was not accepted by the Respondent’s witnesses, including the employee in question and a further security operative working on behalf of the Respondent. No contemporaneous record was made of the incident by the staff of the store and CCTV of the incident was destroyed after 30 days of it, in accordance with the store’s data management policy. The store’s Dignity and Inclusion Policy did address the protected status of the Traveller community, but its focus was on inter-employee relations, not employee-customer relations.

The Complainant attended a consultation with a solicitor, and an employee of this solicitor provided evidence to say an “ES1” form was completed and issued to the Respondent as required by the Equal Status Act 2000. This form serves to notify a Respondent in writing of any complaint prior to that complaint being referred to the Workplace Relations Commission. This practice is in place to encourage parties to meet and resolve any such complaints without the need of WRC intervention. This form, however, was undated, and the Respondent said it had no record of receiving the document.

Outcome:

The Adjudication Officer expressed frustration that no contemporaneous record of the incident in question occurred, and that the ES1 form was not submitted to the Respondent in a standardised method, including with the inclusion of a date. The Adjudication Officer waived the obligation to provide a valid ES1 form, as she found this was an error on the part of the Complainant’s solicitor, not the Complainant himself. However, the Complainant was unsuccessful in establishing that his ejection from the Respondent’s premises was connected with his Traveller status, and so his complaint was not well-founded. The Adjudication Officer commented that the Respondent’s policy on diversity and inclusion is “not inspiring” and that a better policy for managing challenging behaviour from customers should be in place.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

Employers should remember that discrimination and equality issues arise when interacting with employees and with customers and clients, and that employees should be adequately trained and aware of the risks arising from equality claims from clientele.

The full case is here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2023/december/adj-00040150.html